Human cognition seems to rely on two major methods of evaluation. One is comparative evaluation, and the other is absolute evaluation.
Comparative evaluation judges value through differences between people. Income, rankings, academic scores, victories and defeats, or follower counts—many forms of evaluation in modern society are based on comparison.
Absolute evaluation, on the other hand, judges an object based on its intrinsic properties. Whether a mathematical theorem is correct, whether a theory is consistent with observations, or whether a piece of art is beautiful—these judgments depend on the nature of the object itself rather than on comparison with others.
However, when we observe human society, comparative evaluation clearly dominates. People tend to confirm their own value by comparing themselves with others. This tendency is likely connected to human evolutionary history.
For most of human history, people lived in small communities. In such environments, understanding social rank—who is stronger, who is wiser, who is more trusted—was closely tied to survival. It is therefore plausible that the human brain developed a strong tendency to compare.
Yet this comparative evaluation often becomes a source of human suffering. Seeing someone more successful may create feelings of inferiority, while observing others’ achievements may lead to jealousy. In modern society, where social media constantly exposes people to comparisons, such psychological stress may even be increasing.
Nevertheless, humans do not stop comparing. Instead, they continually invent new domains in which comparisons can take place.
Sports provide an interesting example. In modern life, almost no one needs to run dozens of kilometers to move from one place to another. Yet many people voluntarily participate in marathon races and compete for better times.
This is no longer competition for survival. Rather, it is a safe competition game created by humans themselves.
From this perspective, human civilization appears to contain two types of intellectual amusement.
One is the comparison game. Sports, rankings, competitions, and business rivalries all belong to this category, where the main goal is to determine relative position.
The other is the structure game. Science, philosophy, invention, and theoretical exploration belong here—activities aimed at understanding the structure of the world.
The attraction of comparison games is clear. Winners and losers are easily determined, rankings are established, and results are visible. This makes them accessible and engaging for many people.
Structure games are different. There are no rankings. Newtonian mechanics is not described as the “second-best theory,” nor does a mathematical theorem “lose” to another. In structure games, what matters is not victory but explanatory power—how well a model describes reality.
Human civilization may in fact be driven by these two forms of intellectual play. Comparison games generate energy and competition within society, while structure games generate knowledge, discovery, and innovation.
Comparison often produces suffering, yet it also acts as an engine of civilization. Meanwhile, the pursuit of structure provides deep intellectual satisfaction for those who engage in it.
Humans may never completely abandon comparison. However, it is possible to enjoy comparison as a game while occasionally immersing oneself in the world of structural exploration.
Perhaps human civilization itself can be understood as
the history of two intellectual amusements: comparison games and structure games.