The ‘Kind’ Obstacles Thwarting Minor Revolutions
When we think of revolution, we often envision grand scenes of people taking to the streets with flags. However, a true revolution begins with a trivial question in daily life: “Why must I take only this path?”, “Does this conventional choice actually make me happy?”, or “Can I categorize this phenomenon differently?”
When I attempted to mathematically model “people who look like Timothée Chalamet,” someone might have chided me, saying, “You can tell just by looking; why make it so complicated?” The suggestion to “not stand out” is, in fact, a temptation to “reduce the cost of thinking,” and simultaneously, a warning to “not disturb the existing system of sets.” Without realizing it, they are extinguishing the embers of revolution tossed by everyday experimentalists.
The Prison of Statistical Safety
The reason people pressure others to follow convention is that it is statistically “safe.” As we have previously discussed, because humans cannot handle absolute freedom, they feel a sense of relief within verified paths (conventions).
However, the reason the 17th-century elites abandoned their comfortable vested interests and chose persecution was that “individual truth” was more important than statistical safety. The modern pressure to “blend in” urges us to eliminate our own singularities and remain as ordinary data points. The moment I ignore my unique weights (w) and align myself with the societal average, my personal modeling stops, and the everyday revolution dies.
Why We Need Irrational Pioneers
We are under constant pressure to make economically rational choices—the cost-benefit analysis. The saying “Live like everyone else so you won’t suffer later” is profoundly economic. Yet, the progress of humanity has always been sparked by irrational individuals who stepped beyond the fences of that “rationality.”
From the system’s perspective, a person who rejects convention in their daily life and insists on their own method might look like an “error” or “noise.” However, in data science, critical insights are often discovered within that very noise. To conform to the command to “not stand out” is equivalent to manually deleting the most interesting variables from the model of our lives.
Conclusion: Choosing to Enjoy My Own ‘Persecution’
Now, whenever I hear the words “don’t stand out,” I think to myself: ‘Ah, I am currently creating a crack in someone’s rigid worldview.’ A revolution in daily life does not start with a grand slogan; it begins with the “unkindness” of questioning the “obviousness” dictated by convention.
I do not mind if I am marginalized or criticized as irrational in the process. Just as the 17th-century scientists did, I simply wish to redraw the world using my own equations. This exhausting task of redrawing the boundaries of sets and establishing my own model of happiness is the only way I can prove that I am alive.
If someone tells me once more to “just do what others do,” I will answer internally: “I have already discovered an element beyond the empty set that those ‘others’ could never see.”
If you enjoyed this piece:
Explore the “The Place God Left” collection
Discover more from the Abstract collection
Leave a Reply