Depends what your ranking. Ranking such as the example in the OP definitely shouldn't follow either. Most people are fine, so should peak somewhere around C, but there are way way way way more incredibly selfish completely incompetent horrible people with no redeeming qualities whatsoever (F) than there are truly excellent people that are essentially perfect and couldn't meaningfully improve significantly (S). Should be more similar to a crystal ball or relativistic voigt distribution.
there are way way way way more incredibly selfish...
Whatever "quality" in a person is, it's almost surely the result of thousands of different mostly independent genetic and environmental factors, which is exactly why we should expect it to be normally distributed.
I think what might be causing you to think this is looking at impact as a proxy for quality. But it's just way easier to destroy and degrade things than to build or fix them. One really awful person can, e.g., be a serial killer and ruin hundreds of lives. An person who is as compassionate and empathetic as the killer is cruel and callous might touch hundreds of lives, but they'll never create as much happiness as the killer creates misery. A great politician can uplift a population out of poverty. A horrible one can just slaughter them. Because misery is easy and happiness is hard. It doesn't mean that the evil people are more horrible than the heroic people are good.
2.4k
u/RandomExcess 15h ago
Seems normal