Matthew Parris

You're not as special as you think

2 November 2013

9:00 AM

2 November 2013

9:00 AM

My preferred route from the Times’s offices in Wapping on to the main road takes me across a precinct then down a short flight of concrete steps to the pavement below. Across the top step (for reasons unclear to me) a yellow line has been painted behind the step’s edge, like those lines you’re supposed to stand behind on railway platforms. Crossing this, and turning right when I reach the pavement, takes me straight to the right-hand side of the steps. A rational pedestrian seeking to shorten his journey would choose such a route, but not with any precision: one could plot a range of courses down the steps, all about the same length, the very shortest taking one right up against the border of the steps.

I chose, however, (perhaps ‘found myself choosing’ would be more accurate) a shallow diagonal somewhat in from the border of the step.

I happened to look down as I approached the top step. The yellow line had been worn away exactly where my own foot was about to cross. The definition was striking. To within a few inches, it appeared, almost every pedestrian had chosen the same route. Here the line had disappeared; to each side the paint was a clear, unworn yellow. I stopped to take a closer look.

The course that I (and it seems almost everyone else) was taking appeared to represent a compromise between directness and avoidance of excessive proximity between the right foot and the steps’ border. One can only speculate on the ‘reasons’ for avoiding the edge, but they may include fear of scuffing a shoe on the concrete border, distaste for the slight grubbiness of the inside edge, or even a simple reluctance to cleave right up to the border of a wide stairway in a way that looked obsessive.


Who knows? Who cares? No, what arrested my attention was this confirmation of something anyone who uses the Underground or a habitual route through a churchyard must notice: that everyone goes the same way; everyone brushes the same walls, wears out the same patch of lawn. The depression in the stone steps up to the gents’ loo at the Duke of York in our nearby village of Elton in Derbyshire, the shiny patch of brass on the edging of stairs on the Tube, the bare earth in a park’s lawn that indicates a path taken by walkers who don’t, in fact, take quite the shortest route, and don’t go all the way round, but compromise… these are tell-tales, indicative of a wider and deeper truth than what they may say about a pedestrian’s route-finding: we humans are all remarkably similar.

How often have you tired, all at once, of a celebrity, or lost confidence in a politician, or found your patience with a public figure snapping… how often has a particular broadcast interview enraged you, or an idea engaged you, or a speech moved you, or a simple melody heard for the first time caught you… how often has a fear suddenly been born in you, or a hope inspired you, or a stray thought occurred to you… and you said to yourself ‘this response, this moment, was peculiar to me: my own personal interaction with the universe; it was born in my breast by the circumstances of my nature, my experience, in my own time…’ and found almost to your dismay that you weren’t alone, and millions of others have had a similar reaction at a similar time?

Many people, when children, have fantasised about being a changeling, or perhaps adopted. They feel so special, so different, so odd (sometimes), so separated from the family and community into which they’ve been born. ‘I am not as other men are’ is a thought that has occurred to millions.

Then as we grow older and more experienced, we come, perhaps, to the conclusion that it isn’t Me versus Everyone Else, and that others, too, are very individual, very different from each other. The third stage, however, is harder to accept. It is the realisation that not only are other people remarkably similar to each other, but that we are ourselves remarkably similar to them. Just as we share all but a tiny fraction of our total number of genes, so what we have in common dwarfs what we don’t.

These very slight differences can, of course, be amplified by circumstance into apparent chasms; and a balance can be tipped in one person by something very small which, being absent from another person, tips him quite the other way. But we share with others by far the greater part of our response to the world, even when we are led to reacting differently as individuals.

Our printed and broadcast media as well as anecdotal communications are hugely biased towards the unusual. The person who didn’t honour a debt; the person who didn’t display the expected human gratitude; the person who, being trusted, failed to deserve trust — these stories are about the grotesqueries of human behaviour and easily crowd out from our imaginations the truth that most people behave exactly as we would behave, and as we would expect; and to know how most people will feel or react, we have only to ask how we would feel or react.

‘The news’ is like those graphs economists put into newspapers that on inspection have beneath them, submerged and invisible, all but the little peaks and troughs along the top which they show: so that the vertical axis enters our frame of vision about 90 per cent of the way up from base-zero, and what appear to be vast waves peaking and plunging are in fact ripples on the surface. The deep, which is very deep and which the graphs don’t show, is what doesn’t change or vary much: our common humanity.

The 17th-century metaphysical poet Thomas Traherne said this, and I cannot add to it: ‘You never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars: and perceive yourself to be the sole heir of the whole world, and more than so, because men are in it who are every one sole heirs as well as you.’

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • allymax bruce

    Matthew, the Norse call it Edda.
    Quaint article; I liked it for it’s intropsective analysis.

    • Icebow

      You really do need apostrophe counselling. Available free of charge.

      • allymax bruce

        Icebow, yeh, I know; the punctuation of language is something I’m working against just now. My poetry is ‘aligned’ to not punctuate; specifically to allow the words to form their own wealth of meaning to the reader/in the readers mind. Thus, I’m getting to the point now I discount punctuation by habit.

        • Icebow

          Just because T.S. Eliot could get away with it, It doesn’t mean everyone can.

          • allymax bruce

            My poetry is nothing like T.S. Elliot; google allymax ‘Living in the shadows …’, and you’ll find out for your ‘doubting’ self.
            Besides, what’s youre problem? Mabybe you should be reading RD Hinshelwood ‘The Difficult Patient’ !

          • Icebow

            Well, I wasn’t expecting your verse to be anything like that of Eliot, though spelling his name properly ought not to be beyond a poetry fan. I did that Google, but couldn’t find an example, and Kaspersky got upset. I pass over your other errors; and hardly think that you are in a position to be implicitly such an advocate for sanity.

          • allymax bruce

            So, let’s get this right; you couldn’t find my writing, thus didn’t read it, but you criticise it? Then you reference ‘sanity’ as to RD Hinshelwood’s ‘The Difficult Patient’, when that ‘paper’ is an examination of precedence neurosis, (not sanity); thus determining the predilection of those who would argue to be superior, are actually inferior. The paper reads as an ‘Obversation’, but the script is full of typo’s, missing letters/words, and unfortunate grammar, and how it is interpreted by the reader determines what neurosis they have as a precedence; and you failed to understand this. So, what would you know about writing??? ………. You’re an idiot!
            Moreover, you ‘passover’ typo’s, like you’re the ‘instrument of death’; if typo’s, punctuation, or bad grammar is the most important thing in your life, it must be hell being you! Your foster parents must have dropped you on your head when you were a child; or, you’re just plain pig-thick stupid.
            It’s becoming more clear, that you’re the malicious uncontent; there’s definitely something wrong with you. The last time I replied to you, you attacked me then too. Do us both a favour, don’t talk to me again; and get some proper help.

          • Icebow

            Well, there’s multiple misunderstanding for you.

  • mikewaller

    Or, to put it another way, we are all evolved automata largely driven by subconscious algorithms, whose self-images are hopelessly distorted by having evolved “consciousness”, a very late evolutionary bolt-on, the adaptive value of which lies in SUGGESTING solutions to seemingly novel problems. As for similarly adaptive reasons (it provides the key criterion for evaluating options) our sense of self is closely allied to our sense of being conscious, we naturally hugely distort the extent to which consciousness directs our behaviour. Hence Mathew’s surprise at discovering that he is following a very well worn trail.

    Of course, this does not come over quite as pleasingly as his piece! [:-)]

    • Icebow

      Bollocks. Consciousness is involved in evolution from the beginning.

      • mikewaller

        Perhaps you would care to share with us this personal insight that runs so counter to most people’s views of consciousness and its special relationship with humanoids. You might start with consciousness and the amoeba.

        • Icebow

          I’m all too familiar with your sort of delusional materialist smugness.

          • berosos_bubos

            Is there any evidence that decision making is made at the conscious level, and not by the subconscious mind ?

          • Icebow

            I don’t know. What evidence is there that clearly demonstrates the nature of the linkages and interactions between the conscious and subconscious minds?

          • mikewaller

            The first three words very neatly sum up your state of knowledge. In fact, there is an ever-growing body of evidence that shows the subconscious largely calls the shots with poor old consciousness being driven to post hoc rationalisations In some instances the rationalisations are so wide of the mark they are clearly shown to be self-serving inventions that help sustain consciousness’s adaptive delusion of control.

          • Icebow

            I saw that coming, and I pity you.

          • mikewaller

            Oh no you didn’t. It is almost certainly a classic case of your conscious mind coming up with a post hoc rationalisation to avoid seeing what a fool you have made of yourself. Having started of the thread in what I guess is a typically offensive manner, you next left yourself wide open. Once you realised your error, you sought to protect your self- esteem by deluding yourself into believing you had seen it coming. May I therefore thank you for your very useful, if unintended, contribution to neuroscience.

          • Icebow

            I repeat that I expected you. Nothing I have said is as offensive as your fathomless arrogance. You’re not as special as you think. Begone.

          • mikewaller

            As the whole thrust of MP’s article and my neuroscientific reworking was that none of us are special, can’t help thinking that you should find a lower league to play in. If you do so, try to avoid using words such as “bollocks”. To a good-natured chap like me who does not consider you a serious contender, it is harmless enough. But some might be offended.

          • Icebow

            Your dwelling so on a widely-used mild expletive would seem to betray a certain mental brittleness. Indeed, I don’t think you’re in my league, and I don’t mean that mine is the lower.

    • DanV

      But aren’t automata consciously designed and built by someone ?

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      You been reading the Beano again?

      • mikewaller

        I would only do that to get ideas were I at all interested in pitching my comments in a form comprehensible to you.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “You’re not as special as you think”
    Speak for yourself.
    Jack, the only Brit in the village.

  • Roy

    People walk the same path because the grass is shorter and the ground firmer.

Close