80/20 Rule...

[whm1974]

In general this Rule basically States 80% is Shit, only 20% is Worthwhile. Some examples: 80% of everything you see, read, or hear is false... At times it can be far worse then that. IRL? Books and Documentaries about Ancients Aliens visiting the Earth in Ancient Times and/or Abducting Humans in the Modern Era. Do I need to see more?

[gergy008]

This is a very random post

 

That said - I have heard of 80/20 when dealing with things you need to fix, clean up etc.

The first 80% is the easiest bit - the past 20% is the hardest part to complete

[TVwazhere]

The only 80/20 I know is aluminum extrusions 

[Roswell]

If 80% of your reading material is misinformation, you seriously need to reevaluate your sources of information.

 

If you think 80% of the things you see aren’t real, there’s something seriously wrong and should seek help.

[Avocado Diaboli]

I'm 80% certain that you only understood 20% of the Pareto principle. It's not about quality or truth, it's a general trend among many things. For example, you often spend 80% of your time on only 20% of a project and vice versa. Or you spend 80% of your time trying to master something on the 20% of the hardest aspects of whatever skill you want to master.

 

I'm also fairly certain that you're conflating the Pareto principle with Sturgeon's law, which states that 90% of everything is crap.

[Needfuldoer]

You get 80% of the way toward a goal for only 20% of the time and effort, but that last 20% of progress takes 80% of the time and effort.

[whm1974]

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

If 80% of your reading material is misinformation, you seriously need to reevaluate your sources of information.

 

If you think 80% of the things you see aren’t real, there’s something seriously wrong and should seek help.

 

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I'm 80% certain that you only understood 20% of the Pareto principle. It's not about quality or truth, it's a general trend among many things. For example, you often spend 80% of your time on only 20% of a project and vice versa. Or you spend 80% of your time trying to master something on the 20% of the hardest aspects of whatever skill you want to master.

 

I'm also fairly certain that you're conflating the Pareto principle with Sturgeon's law, which states that 90% of everything is crap.

I think you guys misunderstood me there. I never named this principle or law. Called it a Rule instead. It is akin to the idea of don't believe everything you read... 

[IkeaGnome]

It depends on your interpretation.

Quote

In general this Rule States 80% is Shit, 20% is Worthwhile. Some : 80% of everything you, read, or hear is ... At times it can far worse then that. ? Books and Documentaries about  Aliens visiting the Earth Ancient Times and/or Humans in the Modern. Do I need to more?

 

Quote

In gnera thi Rul bascall Staes 8% isShit onl 20%is Wrthwile.Someexamles:80% f evrythng yu se, red, o hea is alse.. A tims itcan e fa wore thn tht. IL? Boks nd Dcumetaris abut Aciens Alens isitng te Eath i Ancent imesand/r Abdctin Humns i theModen Er. DoI ned tosee ore?

Either way, I think doing your own research to back up what's been heard from other sources is very useful. Especially now when it's so easy to spread untrue "facts".

[Imbadatnames]

10% truth 

[whm1974]

11 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

It depends on your interpretation.

 

Either way, I think doing your own research to back up what's been heard from other sources is very useful. Especially now when it's so easy to spread untrue "facts".

OMFG I did not in any way said what you just quoted.

 

However I strongly agree with your statement however.

[Akolyte]

I mean we need to keep in mind that the brain is constantly over-analyzing beyond what we consciously perceive even.

 

We as a species have evolved to look for correlations between things.  In the end, from a survival perspective, over-analyzing your environment and drawing conclusions can allow you to be proactive in evading potential threats, as well as gain an advantage by determining where the best resources are.

 

The issue, however, is that this same part of our brains also draws conclusions about things that are completely unrelated.  While the 80/20 rule does hold some credence, it's not really a law or truth I don't believe, but rather just us making observations on the world and trying to find some correlation. 

 

The truth in the 80/20 rule is, for example in a team, approximately 20% of the people can contribute to approximately 80% of the output.   Does that mean the 80/20 rule is in effect?  No, it means that the team just has some incredibly competent people who have a high productive output.

 

The 80/20 factor might be common-place, but I highly doubt it is prevalent everywhere. This means it's not really a universal truth.

 

-------------------------------------

 

So, the TLDR of what I'm saying - think really deeply and be really skeptical of drawing conclusions.   Think this though, and ask yourself "Am I sure that the 80/20 rule is at play here?" "How can I be sure?" "How would I be able to prove this with factual statistics and data?"

 

This doesn't mean your hypothesis is wrong, it just means it's not a known fact as of yet.

 

The 80/20 rule regarding knowledge for example would be less that 80% is garbage, but that 20% of the books you read contributes to 80% of the things you learned.  Or 20% of a book contains 80% of the knowledge.

 

I don't see any logical proof, or a large subset of data from a variety of cases that shows a real correlation.  This is merely a hypothesis.

[cmndr]

The 80/20 rule or pareto principle more or less states that in a large number of systems, 80% of some attribute can be attributed to a category comprising about 20% of the population/entries.

This plays out pretty well in a wide number of areas if you rank groups/members from high to low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 

For example, if you look at a poorly run business, rank up their expenses you'll find a few categories are pretty large and you can get good effect by optimizing those major categories on your first pass.

 

Quote

The Pareto principle also could be seen as applying to taxation. In the US, the top 20% of earners paid roughly 80–90% of Federal income taxes in 2000 and 2006,^[11] and again in 2018.^[12]

Quote

Occupational health and safety professionals use the Pareto principle to underline the importance of hazard prioritization. Assuming 20% of the hazards account for 80% of the injuries, and by categorizing hazards, safety professionals can target those 20% of the hazards that cause 80% of the injuries or accidents.

Quote

In computer science the Pareto principle can be applied to optimization efforts.^[17] For example, Microsoft noted that by fixing the top 20% of the most-reported bugs, 80% of the related errors and crashes in a given system would be eliminated.

 

[whm1974]

This is supposed to be a Rule of Thumb here.

[cmndr]

4 minutes ago, Caroline said:

Are "little grey men" real? right now, we don't know, we can't prove nor disprove their existence with the use scientific evidence because there's none.

One subtly -

 

if(aliens do not exist & non-perfect knowledge) => cannot be disproven via scientific method

if(aliens exist & found || perfect knowledge) => can be proven via scientific method

If we had the capacity to essentially search all of space and time (or they showed up on our doorstep) then we could conceivably prove or disprove their existence.

The analog would be, we couldn't prove that atoms existed until we had MUCH more sophisticated science, even though they had been hypothesized as early as the 5th century BCE by Democritus and Leucippus.

 

[MultiGamerClub]

Wtf am i reading dude?

[tkitch]

57 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

This is supposed to be a Rule of Thumb here.

Well, you failed on a couple fronts:

 

One:  You're (fairly nearly) quoting an existing, and known axiom.  Including one Linus has quoted on the show more than once.  

 

Two:  You made nearly no god damned sense in the post:

 

Three:  Some of what you said is objectively bullshit.  "80% of everything you see, read, or hear is false"  If that's actually true for you?  Re-evaluate what you read / listen to.  Cuz it really shouldn't be.

Four:  you're being hella defensive instead of listening to other people.

[wseaton]

More like, 80% of the population can't distinguish facts from marketing, 

 

PEBKAC is 100% .

[whm1974]

8 hours ago, tkitch said:

Well, you failed on a couple fronts:

 

One:  You're (fairly nearly) quoting an existing, and known axiom.  Including one Linus has quoted on the show more than once.  

 

Two:  You made nearly no god damned sense in the post:

 

Three:  Some of what you said is objectively bullshit.  "80% of everything you see, read, or hear is false"  If that's actually true for you?  Re-evaluate what you read / listen to.  Cuz it really shouldn't be.

Four:  you're being hella defensive instead of listening to other people.

First I quote no Axiom at all. As for Three, I should have said: "Don't believe everything you read, and only have what you see". Happy Now? Four explain how I'm being defensive?

 

9 hours ago, cmndr said:

One subtly -

 

if(aliens do not exist & non-perfect knowledge) => cannot be disproven via scientific method

if(aliens exist & found || perfect knowledge) => can be proven via scientific method

If we had the capacity to essentially search all of space and time (or they showed up on our doorstep) then we could conceivably prove or disprove their existence.

The point isn't wither or not Aliens exist, but rather if they actually came to Earth during the Human Era, and/or did anything with or to Humans.