Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 May '18 17:27
  2. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    13 May '18 05:53
    Nonsense. You aren't going to successfully run your fancy company if you don't hire some janitors.
  3. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    13 May '18 08:18
    Originally posted by @apathist
    Nonsense. You aren't going to successfully run your fancy company if you don't hire some janitors.
    If said fancy company has, say, ten janitors, three of them will represent 90% of the work produced.

    The Pareto Principle essentially puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that biology doesn't dictate far more than what agenda-driven 'science' wants anyone to think.
  4. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    13 May '18 11:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    If said fancy company has, say, ten janitors, three of them will represent 90% of the work produced.

    The Pareto Principle essentially puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that biology doesn't dictate far more than what agenda-driven 'science' wants anyone to think.
    I call bull. Your stats are made up, and the principle as you say was invented on a purpose that didn't involve facts of the matter.
  5. Standard member apathist
    looking for loot
    13 May '18 11:44
    Originally posted by @apathist
    Nonsense. You aren't going to successfully run your fancy company if you don't hire some janitors.
    The point was missed. If I asked who did the 80% of work in your fancy company, you would not have even thought about the necessary janitors. The "law" is ill-conceived and ill-expressed. In a word it is stupid.
  6. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    13 May '18 14:52
    Originally posted by @apathist
    The point was missed. If I asked who did the 80% of work in your fancy company, you would not have even thought about the [b]necessary janitors. The "law" is ill-conceived and ill-expressed. In a word it is stupid.[/b]
    Your definition or understanding of the Pareto principle requires another swipe.
  7. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    13 May '18 16:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @apathist
    The point was missed. If I asked who did the 80% of work in your fancy company, you would not have even thought about the [b]necessary janitors. The "law" is ill-conceived and ill-expressed. In a word it is stupid.[/b]
    The professor was talking about intellectual work not janitorial services. He did not denigrate ANY work or worker.

    He was talking about the idea that people who rise to the top do so because of superior intelligence.
    Where the 1 % gets most of the money and the 1% of THEM gets even more of the total money and so forth. That is the gist of Price's law, the intelligence curve ensures that happens in all enterprises.
    He mentioned music as example, where Mozart and a few others get most of the airplay on radio and the rest, who may be just as good a composer, will languish because people mostly go with the winners.

    Price says that is a law that transcends just money.

    He decried what happens to those considered unemployable, those with IQ's of 80 or so.

    US military does not accept anyone with such IQ's and they WANT people.
    What does that say for the outside commercial world?
    He made the point that it is not a simple job to work at McDonalds.
    So what work is there for a low IQ person?

    IQ 80 is around ten percent of the population so they are to be left out of the workers equation.
    They never find work so never get included in the unemployment numbers, now T touting HE got the figures down under 4% but those numbers are misleading, not including people who have given up looking for work or those totally unemployable, not counted in the unemployment numbers.

    Counting all that, the real numbers are more like 15%.

    And will stay that way forever.

    Unless there is a way to bring up the lower end of the intelligence curve there will ALWAYS be unemployable people.

    Of course thinking like that is what gave NAZI's the incentive to do genetic experiments.
  8. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    14 May '18 11:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    The professor was talking about intellectual work not janitorial services. He did not denigrate ANY work or worker.

    He was talking about the idea that people who rise to the top do so because of superior intelligence.
    Where the 1 % gets most of the money and the 1% of THEM gets even more of the total money and so forth. That is the gist of Price's la ...[text shortened]... e.

    Of course thinking like that is what gave NAZI's the incentive to do genetic experiments.
    Of course thinking like that is what gave NAZI's the incentive to do genetic experiments.
    You have proof, of course, for such an incredibly baseless assertion.
    There is NOTHING in any literature whatsoever to suggest the Nazi's were aware of, or even considering any of the distribution principles as a means to the inhuman practices they adopted.

    The only profitable light to consider these principles is the impact on individuals, not ascertaining methods of manipulation on groups.
    A person rightly assessing their life's output in relation to the group is the most effective use of this information, this reality and fact of life.
  9. 14 May '18 11:14
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    He was talking about the idea that people who rise to the top do so because of superior intelligence.
    Where the 1 % gets most of the money and the 1% of THEM gets even more of the total money and so forth. That is the gist of Price's law, the intelligence curve ensures that happens in all enterprises.
    If you think it's intelligence that makes people rich, you haven't been paying attention to the news recently.

    There are ecactly three ways to become rich:
    1. Be phenomenally lucky. (This one includes most rich artists, who happened to get popular at exactly the right time, unlike most other artists who may be just as talented but didn't, say, find a publisher willing to take that first risk.)
    2. Be completely unscrupled. This includes most business magnates.
    3. Be born into it.
    Some rich people combine 2 and 3.
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 May '18 16:04
    Originally posted by @shallow-blue
    If you think it's intelligence that makes people rich, you haven't been paying attention to the news recently.

    There are ecactly three ways to become rich:
    1. Be phenomenally lucky. (This one includes most rich artists, who happened to get popular at exactly the right time, unlike most other artists who may be just as talented but didn't, say, find ...[text shortened]... d. This includes most business magnates.
    3. Be born into it.
    Some rich people combine 2 and 3.
    Of course there is luck, also rich parents like T who got millions from daddy.
    However it happens, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. That seems to be how it works.
  11. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    14 May '18 16:10
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Of course there is luck, also rich parents like T who got millions from daddy.
    However it happens, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. That seems to be how it works.
    That's the Matthew Principle.
    Darned Bible and its hidden-on-the-surface truths!
    Right again and again!
  12. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 May '18 16:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    [b]Of course thinking like that is what gave NAZI's the incentive to do genetic experiments.
    You have proof, of course, for such an incredibly baseless assertion.
    There is NOTHING in any literature whatsoever to suggest the Nazi's were aware of, or even considering any of the distribution principles as a means to the inhuman practices they adopted. ...[text shortened]... ation to the group is the most effective use of this information, this reality and fact of life.[/b]
    So you don't think NAZI's did eugenics experiments? Read this:

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

    I suppose it is no surprise you think there was nothing wrong with NAZI medical experiments, eugenics only one aspect.

    Zero regard for human life, do an experiment, kill the victim so he can't later bear witness to world courts.

    You don't surprise me at all.

    BTW, all your 'matthew' principle shows is the bible written totally by humans, no god need apply,
  13. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    14 May '18 17:36
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    So you don't think NAZI's did eugenics experiments? Read this:

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

    I suppose it is no surprise you think there was nothing wrong with NAZI medical experiments, eugenics only one aspect.

    Zero regard for human life, do an experiment, kill the victim so he can't later bear witness to world courts.

    You don't ...[text shortened]... W, all your 'matthew' principle shows is the bible written totally by humans, no god need apply,
    You speak as though you've had a stroke.
    Put down the Fire tablet and have someone with control over their fingers call 911.
    Stat.
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 May '18 19:21
    Originally posted by @freakykbh
    You speak as though you've had a stroke.
    Put down the Fire tablet and have someone with control over their fingers call 911.
    Stat.
    You really mean you scoff since you swallow the tale hook line and sinker.
  15. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    14 May '18 21:28
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    You really mean you scoff since you swallow the tale hook line and sinker.
    What tale are you imagining/creating out of thin air?
    Besides the idea that Nazis drew conclusions regarding distribution principles, incorporating such into the inhuman experiments conducted, that is?