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 :)