If you focus on the average, you miss the majority

November 14, 2011 by
Filed under: Social Brain 

I picked a copy of the Guardian out of a (relatively clean) bin on Saturday, and immediately congratulated myself on the discovery. The highlight was the science column by Alok Jha which gives some mathematical insight into the ‘We are the 99%’ mantra of the Occupy movement.

The vast inequality of wealth is related to broader natural patterns, described as power laws. Power laws have been simplified by trainers and consultants and turned into the so-called ’80/20 rule’ which looks less and less like a rule the more you think about it, and more like a rough and ready heuristic to explain something much more complex and important, which is what it is.

Jha writes: “The maths underlying the 80/20 rule, known as the power law distribution, is found in many natural systems over which no single human has much influence. Its concentration of the extremes seems built into the fabric of complex systems that depend on numerous factors that continually change over time.

The simplest version says that 80% of your company sales will come from 20% of your customers; that 80% of the world’s internet traffic will go to 20% of the websites; 80% of the film industry’s money gets made by 20% of its movies; 80% of the usage of the English language involves just 20% of its words. You get the picture.”

I could dwell on this for hours, but need to get back to serious work. Suffice to say that power laws are important correctives to the human intuitions on what is ‘natural’.

As Jha puts it: “The average height of the people in a room (following the normal distribution) might tell you a lot about the spread heights of people in that room, but the average wealth of a country’s citizens (which follows a power law distribution) tells you little or nothing about how rich or poor most people are.”

Share

Related posts:

  1. Liberal Democrats education spending plans miss the point
  2. Today’s OBR report shows it’s time to focus on the consequences not the principle of cuts

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

  • Graham

    Having said that this should be a corrective to perceptions of what is natural in human affairs, you go on to talk about it in terms that seem to imply that the 80/20 split is entirely ‘natural’ – thus reinforcing the preconception. This may not have been your intention, however this is how many people will choose to interpret it. You can pick as many observeable phenomena as you like to support your argument, but how we choose to organize ourselves as a society is entirely within our gift, and is not determined by immutable laws of any kind.

    • Jonathanrowson

      Thanks Graham. I think we are on the same page, and I did try to avoid the impression you suggest.
      I would qualify your last sentence to say that there are some laws that are relevant to how we think of ourselves and societies, but few of them are immutable, and largely because we are aware of them and capable of adapting to them, we are capable of choosing to organise ourselves in certain ways.
      As I argued in our recent report, I believe we have to get away from the either-or attitude to Science….a mature relationship means recognising we are part of nature, but are capable of being less subject to it than most other species.