Comments on: Pareto’s Rule & Indian DJs http://blog.kushwaha.com/2005/09/04/paretos-rule-indian-djs/ Things from, of and about the head on the shoulders. Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:24:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Woody http://blog.kushwaha.com/2005/09/04/paretos-rule-indian-djs/comment-page-1/#comment-2948 Woody Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:00:06 +0000 http://blog.kushwaha.com/2005/09/04/paretos-rule-indian-djs/#comment-2948 Took ages to reply to this but always had it in my head and so I will. I mentioned Pareto's Rule (or Pareto's Principle) only because it's very commonly identified in some manner. Almost everybody knows about the 80-20 rule and grudgingly or otherwise, nod that they understand the basic statement that is being made through it. I wanted to highlight that most DJs in India don't listen to enough music and have a very limited exposure. My use was inaccurate by any standard but it drove home the point I was trying to make. Specifically speaking of it, you are right in pointing out that it was essentially for Economics. However, perhaps because of the exotic mathematics of 80+20=100, or for some other arcane reason, it has endeared itself to just about anybody who wants to make a point that for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of causes. It's widely used in Management as a reminder to concentrate on what's important. It's no longer an exclusive citizen of Economics. Took ages to reply to this but always had it in my head and so I will.

I mentioned Pareto’s Rule (or Pareto’s Principle) only because it’s very commonly identified in some manner. Almost everybody knows about the 80-20 rule and grudgingly or otherwise, nod that they understand the basic statement that is being made through it. I wanted to highlight that most DJs in India don’t listen to enough music and have a very limited exposure. My use was inaccurate by any standard but it drove home the point I was trying to make.

Specifically speaking of it, you are right in pointing out that it was essentially for Economics. However, perhaps because of the exotic mathematics of 80+20=100, or for some other arcane reason, it has endeared itself to just about anybody who wants to make a point that for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of causes. It’s widely used in Management as a reminder to concentrate on what’s important. It’s no longer an exclusive citizen of Economics.

]]> By: Paul http://blog.kushwaha.com/2005/09/04/paretos-rule-indian-djs/comment-page-1/#comment-2779 Paul Sat, 10 Sep 2005 06:09:36 +0000 http://blog.kushwaha.com/2005/09/04/paretos-rule-indian-djs/#comment-2779 Pareto's rule ... hmm, I don't really know anything about it, so correct me if I'm wrong ... doesn't a rule like this, ('Pareto Thinking as a way of life'), negate itself, at least in the real world, outside of business? Does this mean that, of those other things that you think it applies to, in 80% of cases it doesn't actually apply at all, because 80% of your decisions are wrong? The original formula applied to the distribution of wealth, dividing the populace into those with a lot of money and those with a little, in other words, rich and poor. In business rich is always good, poor always useless, hence the webpage that you cited stated that management should concentrate on the "the superstars." All well and good, business is what business does. But Pareto Thinking as a philosophy to live by is what irks me. It is too exclusive and seeks to divide. What if leaders of nations adopted Pareto Thinking as a way of life and concentrated on their superstars? Anyway, if this formula was drawn up now, based on the lastest figures on the distribution of wealth in the UK, we could have a variant 50/6 rule, where half the population share only 6% of the wealth, and, therefore, we could concentrate on the 6%. (Figures from here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2) Pareto’s rule … hmm, I don’t really know anything about it, so correct me if I’m wrong … doesn’t a rule like this, (‘Pareto Thinking as a way of life’), negate itself, at least in the real world, outside of business? Does this mean that, of those other things that you think it applies to, in 80% of cases it doesn’t actually apply at all, because 80% of your decisions are wrong?

The original formula applied to the distribution of wealth, dividing the populace into those with a lot of money and those with a little, in other words, rich and poor. In business rich is always good, poor always useless, hence the webpage that you cited stated that management should concentrate on the “the superstars.” All well and good, business is what business does. But Pareto Thinking as a philosophy to live by is what irks me. It is too exclusive and seeks to divide. What if leaders of nations adopted Pareto Thinking as a way of life and concentrated on their superstars?

Anyway, if this formula was drawn up now, based on the lastest figures on the distribution of wealth in the UK, we could have a variant 50/6 rule, where half the population share only 6% of the wealth, and, therefore, we could concentrate on the 6%. (Figures from here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=2)

]]>