by Keith Hoell

Created on: May 09, 2008

The usefulness of a person is a wonderful asset in its own place and time, but with the passage of time usefulness can sometimes wear off without the person's adaptability of this usefulness to meet other areas. On the other hand, interestingness always has a place through its vast objectivity - there is always someone who finds something interesting.

Take, for example, a computer programmer who has learned a legacy language like COBOL. COBOL was a business language extensively used in the 1970's and 1980's to program mainframes for many common business oriented tasks like managing payroll, inventory, and costs. This COBOL-proficient programmer would have been very useful a couple of decades back, but if this programmer didn't upgrade his/her skills then he/she would not be very useful programming in 21st century web-oriented languages like Java and Php. So usefulness has its appeal and attractiveness during a certain period that necessitates it.

Interestingness can always be a relevant trait. Granted, one can be interesting for some and not for others or one's interestingness can have a limited lifespan for those who have changing tastes - but the fact is that interestingness will always exist for someone somewhere. Being interesting is not attached to a certain need, place or time like usefulness. Yes, one can be useful throughout one's lifetime with little or no adaptation (for example: a talented singer, musician, athlete, etc.) but too often, like with the example of the COBOL programmer, usefulness has its finite time and place in the spotlight.

Interesting people can always be transient and find those who can value them more often than useful people. It's usually a matter of taste as to what's interesting and what's not. Alternatively, usefulness is defined and is judged by how many relevant tasks can be accomplished through its application. In this manner and with all things considered, interestingness will always be the most valued trait simply because interestingness never loses its appeal for everyone.

Granted, we are using people as the subject to apply this comparison. A whole new argument can be constructed about interestingness versus usefulness when comparing inanimate objects in that some of the most uninteresting things hold the most utility (think rubberized jar opener!)

Also, one more thing to note is that during the turn of the 21st Century, COBOL programmers became very useful once again to help tackle the impending doom of "Y2K." So usefulness can continue to stand the legacy of time, but only when the need arises. Similarly, interestingness may sometimes dwindle but there's always a relevant number who will find something interesting all of the time!

Learn more about this author, Keith Hoell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.