One Size Fits One

Life is infinitely divisible. It is impossible to break a situation down to its most fundamental level. The infinite complexity of the world means that we only run out of information when we stop asking questions. Physically, we proceed from molecules to atoms to quarks and particles, and finally to the intersection of energy and time itself, conjoining even the physical world to the infinite continuum of time. All ideas also have this infinite divisibility. Any idea can be dissected in an infinite number of ways and built upon forever. Even just along these two axes, no two people are ever the same. There will always be imprecision in demand modeling, as what it seeks to model is inherently not possible to fully quantify. While it is possible to predict human behavior very effectively, and even to form human behavior, the battle to understand the human person will never be won. The infinite complexity of any human means that no product or solution will ever be able to take into account the fullness of their target audience. However, this complexity means that in most situations greater customization is more appreciated than standardized solutions. People appreciate customization both because it is often practically better, but also because it fulfills a deep yearning. In every level of human endeavor, our infinite complexity attunes us to recoil at the glaring failures of standardization.

In marketing and product development, it has become much more difficult to avoid scrutiny for standardization. People want to buy products when they feel as though they are one of a select few. The generations where people could get excited purely for convenience and price are long gone. In addition to convenience and a low price,  we now want the luxury of individualization. Even extremely targeted ads and products targeted towards specific groups often fall flat when trying to make inroads into consumers’ hearts in the real world. People can feel when they are being pandered to, and they are not easily won over, even when they’re part of a smaller group being advertised to. We are particularly attuned to recognize this false individualization in a way similar to how we dislike animation that nears the uncanny valley. Most people would rather purchase a good product that serves the purpose well rather than one they know, was designed specifically to appeal to them. However, if they could find one that very uniquely appealed to them without feeling as though it was designed to do so they would have the highest perception of value. We want to be understood deeply and have access to products that work well for us, but we resent others trying to do that for a profit motive.

Government that tries to solve too many problems or too many people‘s problems at once risks ineffectiveness and tyranny. Solving large problems in one swoop requires a lot of power, and that power is often not paired with the right information or motives. Local government can let this happen more effectively, but it is still no guarantee. In addition to different desires, different people have unique political economic frameworks, and these influence how they perceive the effectiveness of their government. People want very specific outcomes and specific ways of getting there, and thus the more people that are under one government, the less chance of those people being happy with it. While the need for community would make this impractical, a wise person governing themselves would create the highest possible level of human satisfaction. However, the fact that even this would not work well, as in the example of king Solomon, makes a case for the inherent flawed nature of the world. Once more people with their lower wisdom and more erratic desires are added into the mix, this becomes even more complicated. It is a truly impossible task to make a government that serves the needs and even desires of millions of infinitely complex people.

Whether in government or business, additional degrees of involvement often call for additional degrees of customization, which can become complex quite quickly. A less involved government does not bear the burden of trying to simultaneously solve most citizens’ personal lives at one time with one set of policies. People want to be understood, and sometimes that comes through well-targeted involvement and other times through a tasteful absence of it. Governments or businesses should either have the capacity to interact with people on an individual level or select a subset of functions to accomplish and do them well.