Laozhainan

(Reverse trigger warning: Despite the title, this article does not feature mentions of self-harm, but merely the academic effort of making life harder for oneself in ways that are, in general, not reasonable.)

In our modern, individualistic societies, we may often come to the realization that our hobbies, interests, likes and dislikes, the very things that are perceived to define our characters and make us unique are, in fact, shared by a plethora of other people. One day, we pick up pickleball, hotpot, or running, only to discover that we have slipped into some kind of stereotype, a bundle of millions of parallel life trajectories. An identity crisis is imminent.

These trajectories, however, are still predominantly guided by reason, moreso by the calculus of self-preservation. The shortest path to true uniqueness leads in the opposite direction and is often trodden inadvertently.

It is thus that today, we talk about keyboard layouts. A well-known fact is that the most popular “QWERTY” layout is not the only way to assign letters to key positions. In fact, from the trusted “QWERTZ” to the “AZERTY” there are many small or large variations that are popular in certain regions of the world.

It may also be well known that this class of layouts has been derived based on their compatibility with typewriter technology. Consecutive keystrokes were optimized to not be adjacent on the keyboard as this could lead to jamming of the typewriter mechanism. In other words, the vast majority of keyboard layouts in use nowadays makes no sense at all.

There is, however, one class of different layouts. Modern ergonomic layouts that were optimized to be typed on modern keyboards. Common keys should be on the easily accessible positions, minimizing finger movement and maxing out the efficiency of the ten-finger typing system. These layouts are of course not popular in any region of our world.

Every reasonable observer can agree on why this is the case. Everyone is already very familiar with the status quo that is the same almost everywhere. Breaking up this uniformity and upheaving this convention would create more costs and confusion than the efficiency improvements could ever be worth.

This logical conclusion, which chains the hands of collective typers across the world, can only be broken by the illogical individual. There is surprisingly little that keeps you from learning a layout like dvorak or neo2. You easily switch the keyboard layout electronically in your operating system. The letters will not match what is written on the keys anymore, but you are not supposed to look at those anyway. Just commit to muscle memory.

Learning a new keyboard layout takes two to three months, in which you will be utterly unable to use your own computer efficiently. It is a decidedly frustrating experience that requires dogged persistence to pull through, and probably, is an ideal opportunity to learn ten-finger typing in the same go.

The reward for this journey is an increase in efficiency. Fewer finger movements put less stress on finger joints and you acquire superpowers like typing ∫α² dα → ∞. Your coworkers will keep asking how you did this. At this time you can really enjoy the fruits of your effort and even derive a sense of individuality from your unique life choice.

You might even forget, for a second, that for being more efficient at your own keyboard, you have simultaneously become unable to use every other keyboard on the planet. An act that might come close to giving yourself a disability. At the same time, your loved ones, and by extension, almost every other human being has become unable to use your computer. You could call this security by obscurity or a double-edged sword or just an express ticket to extended loneliness. By the way, most keybindings get totally scrambled up and you can forget about using the vim navigation keys.

Last but not least, the efficient finger movements during ten-finger typing can encourage a lack of wrist movement, which can cause a whole new repetetive strain injury you were not considering so far. In those cases, probably seek medical advice and look into mechanical keyboards with soft switches and trackball mice.

In short, while uniqueness can help us overcome identity crises and resist the inherent or perceived senselessness of the universe, for practical purposes, it holds some caveats. Especially in a society of automated processes, whether in machines, laws, or thinking, being in a uniquely bad situation is often less pleasant than being in a commonly bad situation. Readers should, in the areas under their control, choose the level of self-inflicted uniqueness or impairment with either prudence or risk-affinity.