Our biggest project is actually more in the social sciences, where we are studying mastery - how people get good at things - only we do it from an individuality perspective.

I care deeply about opportunity and fairness, because I grew up really poor.

We've become so used to the concept as a measuring and sorting tool, that it and its correlates - below-average, above-average - are everyday speech. We don't even question the language, although the challenges we face require a different mindset.

The Age of Average gave us a lot. Take clothing: We've all benefited remarkably from large, medium and small sizes making things affordable and available, but when it really counts - the wedding gown and the pressurized fighter pilot suit - it's bespoke all the way.

It's fine to pretend that people are one-dimensional, like in body size the problem comes when you forget that you are just pretending.

We need to develop people rather than process them.

That was one of my most surprising discoveries when I dug into the history of average-ism: When you actually get the data, it rarely captures anyone. Which then begs the question, why are we using this as a reference standard for human beings?

Education and the workforce: I think these two things go together in terms of human potential.

Right now, for instance, we resist giving people extra time on exams or for assignments, as though it's unfair to the faster students.