Hey, I actually had to Google the 80/20 rule because it wasn't too familiar to me.

80% of the output comes from 20% of the input.

I like applying this idea to my example a lot. Doing a job 20% of the way will have high yield results, after that... the effort to result tradeoff begins to fall off and you get less for your effort.

Thanks for the insight

I appreciate this. My phrasing of these is unnecessarily negative.

I was trying to exemplify patterns that human shouldn't push towards. To backup my claim that "biological does not mean good"

"Animals live outside" is the pattern. If I had one button that keeps everything the same and another that made all people live outside, I wouldn't push the button. Lots of people would die from exposure.

As you point out, the fact that animals live outside does contain some biological truth. Outside is healthy in a lot of ways. But living outside isn't "good" for humans because it's what our biological similars do.

Thanks you prodded at a real issue I failed to notice in my post.

I claim the article is about: "natural does not mean good" Then I go off and seem to try to make a sneaky second claim: "Natural processes can't be proven/verified easily and should hold no weight"

With the second claim being a lot weaker. But I still stand by it.

If I could try to succinctly rephrase it in the context of your response here:

"Patterns are statistically significant and improbable without some outside force. So if we recognize a pattern, it's LIKELY that there is some attractor or gravity creating this pattern. BUT, the fact that something is naturally occuring or biological in nature should add absolutely no credence or change the nature of how we normally pattern match."

So I agree "male humans are on average more aggressive than females." That is great pattern that needs to be in any social model. But if then someone says "this is because all mammals work that way", that second statement is usually unverifiable and should add no credence to the pattern or model.

Same with "assertive men are often leaders". This is a great pattern that should be considered. To then say "this is because pack animals designate an alpha male" is not verifiable and should not add weight to the claim.

Now to me it feels like the biology bit is added to a LOT of arguments. This could be because any good logical thinker want to also pin down causation and upstream effects. I am concerned"it's biological/natural" is tacked onto arguments in an attempt to artificially strengthen arguments, and this post was my attempt at a response to that.

That's precisely the same thing. Thank you, that phrase somehow had never stuck in my mind

Dansko! Thats the clog!

Personally I would lower the Claddagh rings to :low. At Least in the northeast US every Irish girl I know wears one regardless of relationship status and doesn't pay attention to the direction of it.

To add to it. Next time you are at a big clothing store check out the styles of pregnancy clothing. They have elastics around the tummy and often layers for nursing. They are pretty recognizable and a tell-tale sign someone is pregnant or postpartum. It's not uncommon for women To wear pregnancy clothes for a while after the pregnancy as their body is still changing and it's hard to change your wardrobe with a little one.

New parents are always swaying back and forth regardless of whether they are with kids. It's funny once you see it.

Also: tripodding is something they tech you in EMT class as a telltale sign of respiratory distress. I shrugged it off in class but it's pretty reliable. Sitting down, knees apart, with hands or elbows on knees.

I forget the brand. But they are clogs (not wood) that look a bit more modern. They are apparently good on the feet and primarily worn by nurses.

Wanted to confirm. The map doesn't show it well but Boston folks primarily call it a bubbler. Source: from Boston and it's on this list of things people ask you to say

Eh I didn't think you can just ignore facts like the components of the bag. You could actually do this experiment, and the probability won't be 50%.

That's fair. I guess if you will allow me to re-state my idea with your ideas in mind:

Aggregate rating systems are best. But occasionally they are wrong. Sometimes I will see a movie has a high rotten tomatoes score but I still hated it. I don't watch a lot of movies so this happens often actually. Having someone similar to me, who is watching highly rated movies can usually save me time by predicting whether I will like something or not.

You are right aggregate is best. But I think having an aligned friend who knows your preferences can help build on top of that. Or rather help me filter.

I'm my original post I failed to realize that my brother and I are both watching movies that are highly rated. I think using both in conjunction works great. So I'm not disagreeing with you, rather building off your thoughts.

But to pose an interesting question. If tomorrow, rotten tomatoes had an option to find a user who EXACTLY matched the ratings you gave. For instance both of you gave Titanic a 7, Forest Gump a 8, etc. Then the algorithm tells you this user that most matches you, watched Shrek 6 yesterday and gave it a 10/10. Would you prefer that algorithms suggestion over just an aggregate average rating?

There are a lot of cool algorithms that could be applied to this, even a neural net that could take your past ratings and "predict" movies you would like next. I'm sure one might be more accurate than averaging method. SVN or KNN algorithms seem promising off the top of my head.

Forget where I read it, but this Idea seems similar. When responding to a request, being upfront about your boundaries or constraints feels intense but can be helpful for both parties. If Bob asks Alice to help him move, and Alice responds "sure thing" that leaves the interaction open to miscommunication. But if instead Alice says, " yeah! I am available 1pm to 5pm and my neck has been bothering me so no heavy lifting for me!" Although that's seems like less of a kind response Bob now doesn't have to guess at Alice's constraints and can comfortably move forward without feeling the need to tiptoe around how long and to what degree Alice can help.