Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

GGG · 05-11-2018, 06:59 AM

The 80/20 is often often generalized and applied incorrectly. The farming example is one such case. By punishing the most successful everyone cut back on effort not just the 10% which led to the large drop in output. The 80/20 rule implies that the top 20% are 16 times more efficient than the average of the rest of the 80%. It's just not true. The 80/20 rule does have applications in taxation, HSE, Crime, Wealth generation but not output of labour.

But I think the concept of the best 20% leading to wealth generation and Cliffs point about those 10-20% benefiting society is important. I think the question them is how does society maximize the conversion rate of children who have the highest potential in beimgnin that 20%. This leads me back to the Hockey Birthday example. Canada probably loses about 30% of its second line NHL calibur wingers so to the birth day cut offs. The top guys regardless of birthday, make it becuase they are elite but the mid pack NHLers are lost because they are beaten out when they are 8-12 for spots on the good teams by kids who are older than them. So we only end up delveoping a portion of the available talent. This conversion rate is one measure of the efficiency our Hockey development.

So when you apply that to structuring a society the question should be asked how good are we at converting those with potential to be in that top 20% to people who are in thatbtop 20%. The answer I think is we are terrible at it. Now there is definately a genetic component where people with unsuccessful parents are less of a genetic fit with society but given how poor class mobility is the structure of society has to be playing a major factor in the poor conversion rate.

So this is where the identarians have a valid point. If you see differing outcomes based on groups, and when accounting for economic factors, Race, gender, etc find a trait that is under performing the cause is either genetic or structural. So blaming the "Patriarchy" is reasonable. Is it the cause of everything? Of course not. Do class issues play a role in addition to race and gender? Of
Course and to a much greater degree then many identarians would admit. That does not mean that the structure of our society leads to a poor conversion rate of potentially successful people in disadvantaged communities.

Also because I love this graphic from the upshot and it sort of applies here it is the class mobility broken down by race and gender in the US. If you get to the end of it there is an option to build your own comparisons within the data.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...animation.html

05-11-2018, 06:59 AM	#912
GGG Franchise Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Exp:	The 80/20 is often often generalized and applied incorrectly. The farming example is one such case. By punishing the most successful everyone cut back on effort not just the 10% which led to the large drop in output. The 80/20 rule implies that the top 20% are 16 times more efficient than the average of the rest of the 80%. It's just not true. The 80/20 rule does have applications in taxation, HSE, Crime, Wealth generation but not output of labour. But I think the concept of the best 20% leading to wealth generation and Cliffs point about those 10-20% benefiting society is important. I think the question them is how does society maximize the conversion rate of children who have the highest potential in beimgnin that 20%. This leads me back to the Hockey Birthday example. Canada probably loses about 30% of its second line NHL calibur wingers so to the birth day cut offs. The top guys regardless of birthday, make it becuase they are elite but the mid pack NHLers are lost because they are beaten out when they are 8-12 for spots on the good teams by kids who are older than them. So we only end up delveoping a portion of the available talent. This conversion rate is one measure of the efficiency our Hockey development. So when you apply that to structuring a society the question should be asked how good are we at converting those with potential to be in that top 20% to people who are in thatbtop 20%. The answer I think is we are terrible at it. Now there is definately a genetic component where people with unsuccessful parents are less of a genetic fit with society but given how poor class mobility is the structure of society has to be playing a major factor in the poor conversion rate. So this is where the identarians have a valid point. If you see differing outcomes based on groups, and when accounting for economic factors, Race, gender, etc find a trait that is under performing the cause is either genetic or structural. So blaming the "Patriarchy" is reasonable. Is it the cause of everything? Of course not. Do class issues play a role in addition to race and gender? Of Course and to a much greater degree then many identarians would admit. That does not mean that the structure of our society leads to a poor conversion rate of potentially successful people in disadvantaged communities. Also because I love this graphic from the upshot and it sort of applies here it is the class mobility broken down by race and gender in the US. If you get to the end of it there is an option to build your own comparisons within the data. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...animation.html Last edited by GGG; 05-11-2018 at 07:02 AM.