Although some would argue on the definition of proportional. If you work hard, you earn proportionally. We believe that winners deserve their just deserts. The answer is yes so long as we believe in the myth of meritocracy. For simplicity's sake, I think we can restate it as the following question: " Is it possible for a free society to be both open and free for the individual but also fair and equal for all?" Maybe social systems can be blamed, like nepotism and gatekeeping?Ĭheck out the liberal paradox. Do you think that's true? Is society really just "gods and clods"? It seems that nature is simply unequal by design. This makes me wonder about the nature of Equality itself. I think most people would agree that this certainly seems to be the case in merit-based systems, at least: how many writers end up being published through an agency? How many football players get into the NFL? How many musicians have a record contract? Etc, etc. So basically what we have here are two separate ideas which espouse the same principle: Most "output" in a given system is.I'm trying to think of how to put this gently."not outstanding". Other names for this principle are the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity. The reason I think it's so interesting is because it ties in with the Pareto Principle, which is claims that:įor many outcomes roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes (the “vital few”). Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage that states that "ninety percent of everything is crap." I heard about Sturgeon's Law today and I thought it was really interesting.
0 kommentar(er)
