You'll never be better than me...

This morning I awoke with an interesting question on my mind...

Interesting for two reasons:

1)  I haven't been able to come to a solution to this question all day.

2)  My brain made the question all on its own just so I could wake up and find it.  (This gives you an idea of what it's like to spend a day in my head!)

So here's the question - actually its more of a riddle:

There are three men living in the desert who subsist upon tomatoes.  Tomatoes don't grow well in the desert and therefore each has a different solution to their conundrum.   

Before you read the solutions below, think to yourself how you might solve this problem?  The problem of course being that your main food staple does not grow well in your environment.  I'm willing to bet that your personal solution will guide your answer to the following question which is the point of this exercise. 

The question to be pondered is:

Which man is the smartest?

 Now that you have thought about this problem and formed your own preconceived notion for arriving at a solution, read the solutions below and see if you can answer, which man is the smartest? 

Here are the men's solutions:

A)  Since tomatoes don't grow well in the desert, the first man decides to re-locate to an environment where tomatoes grow plentifully.

B)  Since tomatoes don't grow well in the desert, the second man studies hard and figures out a way to encourage tomatoes to grow in the sandy soil.

C)  Since tomatoes don't grow well in the desert, the third man works to alter his diet from one that requires tomatoes to one that requires oranges.  Oranges grow much more plentifully in the desert soil.

Which man's solution is the smartest?


Unfortunately, I don't have the answer to this question.  But I awoke with the question in my head so I felt like it was worth analyzing.

Clearly there are variables which would make any of the given solutions more attractive in certain circumstances.  For instance, if oranges are indeed plentiful - particularly to the point that they grow naturally in the desert - then solution C seems to be the most practical and, therefore, smartest.

If, however, a man cannot live on oranges, and must find tomatoes, then solution A would make the most sense because the short term move to a location plentiful with tomatoes would pay off more easily than the long term difficulties involved in harvesting or changing one's diet. 

But what if the man's family lives in the desert and they cannot move and they don't have the dedication necessary to change diets?  Then, of course, solution B is the most viable.

 The point of this question, I suppose, is to recognize that it is almost impossible to make clear, definitive, quantitative judgements such as determining who is most or best or highest, without first completely defining the the parameters and indeed negating all but the most necessary possibilities.

At the end of the day the question that sits in my mind is:

How do I know that someone, anyone, is smarter/better/more/less/weaker/stronger/grander than me?

The answer is I don't.

Is the fastest man in the world faster than me? ... Not if he's running a footrace and I'm in a car.

Is the prettiest person in the world prettier than me? ... Not if they are blonde and the person in front of me prefers brunettes.

Is the smartest man in the world smarter than me? ... Not if he knows how to build a greenhouse and I like oranges.

Is anyone really more than me? ... No, because I am the best "me" that there ever will be.


So this is what I woke up to this morning - reminding myself that nobody is better than me at being me, and I am better than no one at being them.  Not everyone is comfortable with equality, but it is an indisputable fact.  When compared exclusively within our individual selves, we are all equal!





...By the way, this type of puzzle is why I hate and performed so poorly on multiple choice tests.  There are never enough choices!