Actually Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto's law, the 80/20 principle. Don't know if he was a libertarian though, I never saw the point in serching that to be honest.
Absurd? You're free to feel whatever you please. Elitist? Mathematical observations come without emotions nor ideologies.
I'm fascinated how you picked on that specific thing, and not sociopathy and witch-hunters.
It's interesting. I like it.
An interesting post @the-alien. I'm a huge supporter of the Pareto principle in most cases. However I don't think it can be applied to everything.
For example if Donald Trump said that 80% of Mexicans were criminals and rapists... And some (20%) were good people..
Then defended it by calling it an objective mathematical algorithm... ya know an 'alternative fact'...
Defending the Pareto principle like it's a mathematical proof is inappropriate in this situation, in my opinion.
Something feels wrong with that kind of defense.
It's most definitely not applied to everything. It's applied that a small part of the people create most of the value, and a small percentage create most of the trouble.
Most companies in the world operate on those principals as well.
Say you wanna target new users, a small percentage will influence a large number of people to join.
However. That was an insignificant line here. And in any community, a small percentage of people create most of the drama :)
Most witch-hunts are started by the very same people. Not in steemit, in any community.
Anyways, I can be wrong. Maybe in all jobs, hobbies or sports every one is a 100% equal in everything? It doesn't matter much to the context here.
That was probably the least significant line in the message anyways.
Nice seeing you again man! Hope you're doing great!
Steemit is definitely an interesting look at social psychology, that's for sure.
Also please don't hang yourself on the 20%. In some cases its 90/10, in others 30/70.
It is not a law proofed my math, but a principle, a rule of thumb based on observation.
But you find that nearly everywhere. Even in nature, where 20% if the area hosts 80% of the (diversity) of species.
I remember reading a book on it a few years ago, I'll have to have another skim through :)
I don't think that the Pareto Principle is gospel. It's kind of like the golden ratio... there is nothing magic about these proportions. You can find all sorts of patterns if you're looking for them. Assuming they have valid application across a wide range of subjects, or that things are somehow pre-determined to conform to them, is unscientific, intellectually lazy, and depending on how they are used, even dangerous.
I guess it just jumped out at me as a sweeping claim that is too broad and vague to have any utility. Yet it sounds good and fits into an ideology of apologia for inequality and oppression in many forms. If only 20% of the population is really contributing anything to society, it quickly becomes a justification for demonizing and mistreating the other 80%... This sort of thinking has led to great tragedy often in history, and even more frequently it contributes to a status quo that subjugates the masses to prop up economic and political elites.
Besides all that, in order for that particular statement to hold water, you'd have to define "value" in a very narrow sense to quantify it in a way that can be measured. Value is inherently subjective and defies quantification. Any metric that I can imagine to use in an attempt to quantify it would be inherently flawed. Similarly "bringing" the value would be difficult to measure... virtually impossible unless you are examining a very narrow and simple case.
I find it disconcerting on a number of levels.
So I'm gonna skip through all the "intelectually lazy", the "dangerous" and all the inflated words.
I'm gonna treat you with respect (not faking it, I mean it).
This post is very clear, very concise. It's about the witch-hunters.
That's the aim of this, that's what's important here. let's not drive the conversation away.
You can write a post debunking the pareto principle and I promise you, I'll read it.
As I said, with respect.
With all due respect, I was trying to discuss ideas... seems you're more interested in talking about people.
I don't know about these witch hunters, I thought the post had something to do with Libertarianism. I apologize.
What? I just encouraged you to write a post about the other subject and we'll discuss it there.
Or PM me if you want.
This post has to do with lessons from the libertarian in-fighting where the lesson is about: Witch-hunting.
This is the subject discussed here, but I'm glad to discuss anything else you want elsewhere.
What will never happen is that I'll fall for it, and let the message be distracted by something else.
It just ain't gonna work here. :)
No need to appologize, I was clear and concise. I'm happy to discuss anything else you want. Just not letting the discussion get distracted.
We can encourage discussions about witch-hunters here. And talk about other stuff there. :)