Human beings all have the habit of comparing themselves with others. By comparing or competing with different people, we try to figure out our proper position. One might even call it our “coordinates” to understand where we stand. Without knowing that, it’s difficult to grasp our place.

Bats, for instance, are said to emit something like ultrasonic waves when flying in the darkness of caves, and by listening to the returning echoes, they measure distances in order to fly safely. Similarly, cats and other animals have whiskers, but not for showing off. The whiskers help them sense their surroundings and measure distance when entering narrow spaces.

Submarines work the same way: they emit sound waves and calculate the echoes to measure distance. To avoid hitting the ocean floor, or to determine how far away an enemy ship is, they use sonar.

In this way, keeping a sense of distance is not easy, but confirming where we stand in relation to others is a tendency found in humans and animals alike. I think it is an important part of living properly.

It Is Difficult to Be Generous Toward an Opponent Whose Ability Is Equal to One’s Own

 
To clarify the intent of the question: for instance, if a famous professional baseball player were to visit a little league team to provide instruction or simply watch them play, he would likely offer words of praise even for small efforts. Should a child say earnestly, “I want to become a professional baseball player too,” the professional might respond, “Yes, if you work hard, you can certainly achieve that.” If the child were to ask, “How can I become one?” the professional might then give concrete advice, such as: “Practice swinging the bat hundreds of times every day,” or “Throw more than a hundred pitches daily.” In this sense, he is essentially encouraging the pursuit of self-realization without reservation.

However, the situation changes when it is between professional players themselves. When they are engaged in intense competition for regular positions, such as who will be first base, third base, shortstop, or who will bat third or fourth – matters are not so straightforward.

What this illustrates is that when there is a wide disparity in ability or strength, people are capable of offering praise, and they can afford to be tolerant in encouraging the other’s self-realization. Yet, once another’s ability approaches one’s own, such tolerance diminishes. At times there may still be praise, but there will also be severity, and both tendencies will begin to emerge.

On the other hand, when someone who was once inferior begins to surpass oneself, criticism and disparagement increase. Should the gap grow so wide that one can no longer hope to prevail, it may degenerate into nothing but malicious talk.

This phenomenon is commonly seen among politicians, and also among bureaucrats. When it becomes apparent that one cannot attain a high position, criticism flows without restraint. Yet, if asked, “Do you truly believe that person is evil?” – the moment the individual resigns from office, the criticism ceases abruptly. This demonstrates that the hostility is not rooted in genuine hatred, but rather in frustration: resentment that “I could not achieve that position, yet he attained it and proceeded to act as he pleased.” It is this frustration that compels one to speak ill of others.

The mass media, in turn, functions as a kind of surrogate in this regard, providing an outlet for the frustrations of the general public. This dynamic can be observed repeatedly.

When a Young Actress Who Quickly Becomes Popular Is Seen as “Conceited”

Even when we talk about self-realization, I think it’s important to keep a good grasp on the parts that are always changing. Every year, for example, magazines publish things like “Top 10 (or Top 20) Favorite Actresses / Least Favorite Actresses,” or “Favorite Male Actors / Least Favorite Male Actors.” And there are always people whose names appear on both lists.

Sometimes I think, “That’s strange.” You’d expect that if someone is well-liked, they wouldn’t be disliked – but in reality, the more they are liked, the more they may also be disliked. That makes me wonder why.

When someone hasn’t yet become very popular, people tend to praise them, saying, “They still have room to grow,” and give encouragement. But once they rise past a certain level, people start to think, “Maybe they’re getting too much praise,” and then criticism begins, it’s hard to understand – but that’s where it gets tricky.

Ms. Emi Takei, for example, – who gave birth, took a break from acting, and was expected to return in the film Rurouni Kenshin – used to say things like, “Since there’s no one younger than me, it’s hard because I always have to be considerate,” or “Being the youngest all the time makes it difficult to build relationships with others,” no matter what kind of shoot it was. But by the time she reached twenty two or twenty three years old, people began to point out that she was acting somewhat imperious, “empress-like” manner, and when she suddenly got married, some even criticized that it may have caused inconvenience to those around her.

Ms. Suzu Hirose had been cited as “the strongest actress of her teenage generation.” I myself even praised her in my book. In fact, given how in-demand she is for films and other projects, it is clear that she enjoys genuine popularity. However, while she is often ranked high on lists of “well-liked actress,” at the same time she also appears on lists of “disliked actresses,” which made me wonder, “Why is that?”

At nineteen or so, she would still typically be among the youngest on a set, but most likely, the issue is that her popularity grew too great, too quickly. For someone only nineteen to begin winning awards such as the Japan Academy Prize – which are ordinarily bestowed upon individuals in their thirties or forties, after their position in the industry has become firmly established – is unusual. Normally, such recognition is given to actors with extensive careers and a solid body of work. So when someone with only about three years in the industry is suddenly ubiquitous and then wins a prestigious award, people begin to say, “What? She hasn’t even fully trained yet, and already she’s winning an Academy Award?” in such cases, the number of critics naturally begins to increase.

It is admittedly a bit of a shock. Ordinarily, one would call such an accomplishment at nineteen a remarkable feat. Yet because she is treated as though she were already a leading actress, some observers begin to perceive her as speaking more sharply, or carrying herself with an air of arrogance. Consequently, unless she conducts herself not as a nineteen-year-old but in the manner of someone older – say, twenty-five or thirty – she risks being dismissed. In other words, unless she can adopt the perspective of a more seasoned individual who has a deeper understanding of how the world works, she will inevitably come across as impertinent. And so, while she was once broadly liked, part of the public has begun to regard her as “conceited.”

Photo:Denis Makarenko / Shutterstock.com

In a Highly Homogeneous Group, It Is Often Difficult to Determine One’s Own Standing

Even in school, if you perform well academically, teachers generally praise you, and friends may also say, “That’s amazing.” However, when you find yourself in an extremely homogeneous environment – such as at an elite preparatory school – things are not so straightforward.

I come from a rural area, where academic performance varied widely from the top to the bottom of the class. In a public school, you truly encounter the full spectrum, from the highest-achieving to the lowest-achieving students. The diversity is such that you sometimes wonder whether it is even appropriate to group everyone together.

At higher-level schools – for instance, a top-tier girl’s school – the exams are difficult. When a test is administered, out of roughly 240 students in a grade, the highest score may be around 70 and the lowest around 60. In other words, all 240 students are clustered within a ten-point range. This is an extremely homogeneous group. In such an environment, it becomes very hard to know where you stand – whether you are considered excellent or mediocre is not easily determined.

Even after graduation, similar issues persist. For example, at top universities, some students may say, “I was never once ranked within the top 40 during my six years of schooling,” while others who were ranked at the very bottom of their 240 -member class, might fail to gain admission immediately but then succeed, after a year of study, in passing the entrance examination for a prestigious program such as the Humanities II division at the University of Tokyo. This suggests that the differences in ability within such groups are in fact extremely slight.

I believe this phenomenon occurs in boy’s schools as well. Within such homogeneous settings, it becomes very difficult to make an objective assessment of oneself. One cannot easily see “how I would be regarded from a broader, nationwide perspective” or “where I would stand in an ordinary school context.” Furthermore, when a large number of students proceed to similar universities, yet another homogeneous group is formed, and once again, it becomes difficult to understand one’s true position objectively.

It Is Essential to Understand One’s Sense of Distance and Position Through the Opinions and Reactions of Others

While one remains in a homogeneous group, people generally share similar values. In such an environment, you gradually come to understand what kinds of actions are praised and what kinds are criticized, and thus you rarely stray too far from the expected norms. For this reason, individuals in such groups often prefer to work in organizations where many people of similar backgrounds and abilities are gathered.

In such workplaces, when there are many senior colleagues, they often guide and support their juniors, particularly where a clear system of seniority is in place. Conversely, in environments where such structures are absent, seniors may not provide the same guidance. In meritocratic organizations – where positions can quickly shift based on performance – senior employees may hesitate to support juniors, fearing it could jeopardize their own standing. In this respect, government offices, for instance, are organized strictly according to seniority. The same is true of banks, where people invariably ask, “In what year did you join?” When meeting someone, it is customary to ask, “Which year did you enter the bank?”

By contrast, the trading company I joined differed from banks in this regard. There, the year of entry carried less significance, and competition was fierce across as much as a ten-year range of employees. At any point, the order of ranking could be overturned. Meanwhile, when speaking with those in banking, one is always asked, “What year did you join the company?” as a means of determining whether one’s status is higher or lower.

The point is that while values may continue to function smoothly in homogeneous settings, once you step into a more diverse or heterogeneous environment – where variation is inherent – those same values may no longer apply. It is therefore important to be aware of this.

One must listen to the opinions of various people and, as I mentioned earlier, gauge one’s own position by observing the “echo,” so to speak – the speed at which feedback, like ultrasonic waves bouncing off a wall, returns. Only by doing so can one accurately understand one’s distance and orientation within a broader environment.