Mediocrity is the norm or social evil?

A genius or even just a talented person must be born. Whatever they say about the need for hard and hard work (by the way, we do not at all deny it), without the talent and ability, without the psychophysiological predisposition to creativity to achieve meaningful results difficult. But why do people say with such contempt that someone is "mediocre"? This can be heard in the school, in the university, and in any collective. We involuntarily envy the talented, successful. And we brand those who - as it seems to us - do not stand out.

What is mediocrity? Is this the norm or the deviation? Let us ponder the very meaning of the word, its etymology (internal form) often helps to understand the essence of the concept. Mediocrity is what is between the extreme points. Theoretically - between plus and minus. So why is this bad? Is the observance of the "golden mean" not approved by society? However, if, for example, the scale We will map the intellect in the form of a coordinate system, where plus is genius, and the extreme minus is its complete absence (from oligophrenia to anencephaly), then it becomes clear that mediocrity is zero. The starting point, nothing. I do not want to be a zero to anyone. Just like no one wants to be considered mediocre, meaningless and incapable of anything. Is not this our dislike of this concept?

The extreme mediocrity of thinking is inability, unwillingness or inability to go beyond standards, established dogmas, stereotypes. The creative approach, in principle, has always been the engine of progress and development. However, only recently sociologists and psychologists have posed the problem of "mediocrity as a social danger". Is this a formidable phenomenon? How can it be dangerous?

After all, traditionally, people were wary of those who deviate in any direction from the generally accepted "norm." Geniuses were often outcasts, eccentrics, renegades. Just like mentally handicapped people, although it was to them that a greater condescension. But in recent decades, such concepts and qualities of personality are actively cultivated, such as unordinaryism, unconventionality, creativity. This is done by psychology, pedagogy, and other sciences that study man. So what is the danger of mediocrity? After all, the most standard, standard solution of the tasks and problems posed can not be considered a sin. Just as creativity can not be an end in itself. It seems that mediocrity is considered undesirable and dangerous, primarily because of the propensity to conformism. To follow the crowd behind the herd. To blindly and thoughtlessly fulfill another's will. Namely, with this, mankind has come face to face especially tragically for the last hundred years.

In theory, in a society with traditional moral principles, with a solid system of values, mediocre people follow them and accept them, if only because everyone does it. And there is nothing reprehensible in this. Another thing is that if there are no such foundations, if either dictatorship or anarchy are strong, the inability to stand out from the crowd and the desire for blind submission can be dangerous precisely by their mass character. Mediocrity does not analyze the causes of the phenomenon, does not delve into the essence. It merges with the crowd because "it's so necessary" and "so do everything". This is the main trouble. However, is mediocrity eradicable?