There’s a lack of general consensus as to what constitutes significance. This is almost a universal phenomenon, and can be seen in almost every situation that can be thought of. It can be concretely visualized by going through multiple examples - in school, while scoring top notch grades might not be so significant an achievement for some, even managing to barely pass all subjects might be a great one for others; in sports, 11.59 sec for a 100-metre dash may be slow for Usain Bolt whereas it’s probably superhuman for most of us; in statistics, a p-value quantifies significance, sure, but what threshold to set for significance is still a subjective call on part of the experimenter.

It is fascinating to note that this very simple first principle shapes so many important decisions, and has such a massive impact on a global scale - and if there really was a convergence in thoughts among populations the world would be very different today. There is a lack of consensus on what comprises the best form of government, what rules and regulations a market should follow, how children should be educated, what’s the best way to live life - and it’s unlikely that there ever will be one path on which everyone agrees.

There are biological differences, there’s Brownian motion, there’s environment - all of these in varying combinations, at some basic level, ensure that there will always be a lack of consensus on what constitutes something of signficance. Maybe it isn’t such a bad thing - diversity provides an interesting set of ideas to consider, contrarian viewpoints, and opportunities to punch holes in our own reasoning. We can be sure that this significance mismatch is certainly significant. You may disagree, but that proves the paradoxical point. Strange.