One of Gardner's most important arguments is against the narrowing of excellence to a single dimension. The culture of most societies, and particularly of formal educational systems, has a habit of treating a specific set of capabilities, usually academic, cognitive, and communicative, as the primary or exclusive form of excellence, and treating everything else as a lesser achievement. Gardner insists this is wrong, both empirically and morally. The best surgeon, the best carpenter, the best teacher, the best community organiser, the best parent: each is a form of excellence that deserves recognition and requires the fullest development of specific capabilities. Ranking these forms of excellence in a hierarchy is not a judgment of their social value. It is a reflection of social prejudice about which forms of capability matter. He argues for what he calls a conception of excellence that encompasses every field of human endeavour. The standard within any field is set by the best practitioners of that field, not by comparison to practitioners of other fields. A first-rate nurse is not being compared to a first-rate physician. She is being compared to the best possible version of nursing. The excellence is real and complete within its own frame. This argument has practical consequences. It means that every person's pursuit of excellence is valid in its specific direction. It means that the question 'Am I excellent?' is only answerable in relation to a specific field of endeavour. And it means that educational systems, communities, and individuals all have a responsibility to recognise and celebrate excellence wherever it exists, not just where it conforms to the dominant cultural definition.