THIS exegesis concerns mainly girls, or is at least sparked by a study of the species.
Not that I know much about the subject but, for the purposes of this column, I'm an expert.
My expertise began when I read claims by an academic that ordinary-looking "plain Janes" were happier at school than popular and attractive girls. Professor Carrie Paechter, a top expert at Goldsmiths College in Londonshire, concluded that sociable and successful pupils often had the worst problems because of pressure to stay ahead of the pack.
Not only that but members of the cliques they inhabit are likely to turn on each other. How awful it all sounds.
I must say my praise of "ordinary" is qualified. The Socialist politician and tabloid tittle-tattle target Tommy Sheridan often used to refer to "ordinary working-class people".
His aim was to liberate them from their oppression and so forth. But I often thought the epiphet "ordinary" somewhat demeaning in this context. Imagine addressing a packed hall (probably in the last century, right enough) and saying: "I have come to free you, the ordinary people."
At one time, ordinary people were thought to travel on the Clapham omnibus. A later variant of this featured Mondeo Man, a crucial target for the mercenary organisations known as political parties.
But I'm conflating two ordinaries here. The ordinariness of the girl scenario outlined above was essentially about looks. And here, I fear, it's also a mixed blessing.
Beautiful people do get better service and more smiles from the lieges. But they also get gawped at and, I must say, I wouldn't like that. Ordinary is, I suppose, a middle way between gorgeous and plug-ugly (see byline picture).
For some, it's an insult. For others, it's a state to which one aspires.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article