Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Bell Curves
There are theories that purport pretty much everything in life can be quantified by a bell curve representing the normal distribution of certain results. This is a mathematical concept describing events or phenomena and how the graphing of the results tends to result in a curve resembling a bell; the most common occurences are toward the middle of the bell and the less common are toward the outside of the bell. There are always occurences that fall on the smaller part of the curve and cases that fall outside the curve, the outliers. These are the cases that interest many people.
Given the concept that most things occur in the shape of a bell curve and most events are covered in the biggest part of the curve, there are always exceptions to the common. When examining the results of an analysis of a bell curve, one should focus most attention to the large part of the curve because this represents the biggest majority of cases. Why is it that we seem to have become so obsessed on focusing on the smaller part of the curve or the outliers or exceptions to the rule instead of dealing with the majority.
I think majority rule has gotten a bad break in the past 30 years or so (I think it was my generation). The big movements of the 60s and 70s focused on the minorities not the majority of everything. Certainly the Civil Rights movement's whole purpose was to focus on the minorities. The majority had their rights but the smaller parts of the curve needed some teeth in the laws to ensure they had their rights also. The Women's Liberation movement focused on a minority also, women in the workplace; another necessary target to focus upon, since the heart of the bell curve was under control. The Environmental movement focused on an overlooked segment of our economy, waste and pollution. Also a needed wake up call.
But what grew out of all of this new awareness around us was an abnormal amount of attention being given over to the smaller part of the curve and even upon the outliers of all kinds rather than upon the exceptions that really mattered. We had grown into a large, wealthy and powerful nation through the efforts of vast numbers of people focusing on the meat of the bell curve. The smaller parts of the curve had been ignored and demanded their share of attention. So we started to give them their due and in tipping the scale towards the smaller end and the exceptions we gave them way more than their share. We still do.
How can we justify spending 200 billion dollars of federal money on the gulf coast to rebuild a city that is below sea level? Yes, I understand the importance of the oil business and the fishing industry and the river traffic to the country as a whole. But it is still a small segment of our country not the meaty part of the bell curve. We have lots of smaller parts of our nation and all parts are important in their own way. We cannot justify throwing large amounts of money at a small section of the country to make ourselves feel good in helping someone. There are problems everywhere in this country that need attention and focusing on the small part of the curve is not going to be cost beneficial.
I think our federal government needs to focus on the meaty part of the curve and leave the smaller part to the local governments. There is a reason why we have several layers of governments. Each level has its' own priorities to deal with and its' own ways of dealing with them. When we elevate a small segment to an important fountainhead, we ignore the efforts and responsibilities of the local levels. The feds should be sweeping over the grander aspects, the larger problems and leave the smaller parts of the curve alone.
Take a look at the Abu Ghraib or prisoner of war situation for a minute. A normal distribution bell curve would show most occurences of prisoner handling well within the meaty part or the smaller part. But the media and many other naysayers have focused exclusively on the outliers, the exceptions to the rule and use these cases to state that the entire military prison situation is out of control. When you focus on the exceptions, you will have that philosophy.
I have worked with people in my field of computer programming that enjoy focusing on the exceptions rather than on the mundane. Try to design a software system that handles every possible exception and you will never arrive at a finished, working piece of software. The main goal in designing software is to get something that works most of the time. One can always deal with the outliers on a case by case basis. A friend of mine once told me he liked to program where it would give a "bigger bang for the buck". He was not one to focus on the exceptions. In general, if you can handle the meaty part of the curve, you will be better served.
But what I observe far too much these days is an undue amount of attention given over to the rare cases and less attention spent on the mundane or routine cases. Get the routine cases right and you can achieve success 80% of the time. If 80% is working right, then you can spend some time on the other 20% and improve those chances. The Law of Diminishing Returns will kick in somewhere along the line and you will achieve less and less with more and more energy and attention and resources. You have to quit focusing on the exceptions at some point.
With the explosion of technology there are many ways for smaller parts of the bell curve to be heard. The Internet is an amazing equalizer! Small companies become big, local business goes worldwide, a mom and pop store in Pakistan sells goods to a family in Montana! Virtually anyone with a desire to be heard can voice his/her concerns to anyone in the world instantly. There is no need for government to champion any group's cause. They have that power themselves.
Government needs to refocus on the big part of the bell. The means are available for the smaller parts of the curve to be heard. There is no need to dwell on the exceptions, there will always be exceptions and they can never be completely prepared for. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way it is. Sometimes we have to accept that something has occurred that we did not anticipate and leave it at that. Focus on the "biggest bang for the buck" and be satisfied. No one on earth is God.
Given the concept that most things occur in the shape of a bell curve and most events are covered in the biggest part of the curve, there are always exceptions to the common. When examining the results of an analysis of a bell curve, one should focus most attention to the large part of the curve because this represents the biggest majority of cases. Why is it that we seem to have become so obsessed on focusing on the smaller part of the curve or the outliers or exceptions to the rule instead of dealing with the majority.
I think majority rule has gotten a bad break in the past 30 years or so (I think it was my generation). The big movements of the 60s and 70s focused on the minorities not the majority of everything. Certainly the Civil Rights movement's whole purpose was to focus on the minorities. The majority had their rights but the smaller parts of the curve needed some teeth in the laws to ensure they had their rights also. The Women's Liberation movement focused on a minority also, women in the workplace; another necessary target to focus upon, since the heart of the bell curve was under control. The Environmental movement focused on an overlooked segment of our economy, waste and pollution. Also a needed wake up call.
But what grew out of all of this new awareness around us was an abnormal amount of attention being given over to the smaller part of the curve and even upon the outliers of all kinds rather than upon the exceptions that really mattered. We had grown into a large, wealthy and powerful nation through the efforts of vast numbers of people focusing on the meat of the bell curve. The smaller parts of the curve had been ignored and demanded their share of attention. So we started to give them their due and in tipping the scale towards the smaller end and the exceptions we gave them way more than their share. We still do.
How can we justify spending 200 billion dollars of federal money on the gulf coast to rebuild a city that is below sea level? Yes, I understand the importance of the oil business and the fishing industry and the river traffic to the country as a whole. But it is still a small segment of our country not the meaty part of the bell curve. We have lots of smaller parts of our nation and all parts are important in their own way. We cannot justify throwing large amounts of money at a small section of the country to make ourselves feel good in helping someone. There are problems everywhere in this country that need attention and focusing on the small part of the curve is not going to be cost beneficial.
I think our federal government needs to focus on the meaty part of the curve and leave the smaller part to the local governments. There is a reason why we have several layers of governments. Each level has its' own priorities to deal with and its' own ways of dealing with them. When we elevate a small segment to an important fountainhead, we ignore the efforts and responsibilities of the local levels. The feds should be sweeping over the grander aspects, the larger problems and leave the smaller parts of the curve alone.
Take a look at the Abu Ghraib or prisoner of war situation for a minute. A normal distribution bell curve would show most occurences of prisoner handling well within the meaty part or the smaller part. But the media and many other naysayers have focused exclusively on the outliers, the exceptions to the rule and use these cases to state that the entire military prison situation is out of control. When you focus on the exceptions, you will have that philosophy.
I have worked with people in my field of computer programming that enjoy focusing on the exceptions rather than on the mundane. Try to design a software system that handles every possible exception and you will never arrive at a finished, working piece of software. The main goal in designing software is to get something that works most of the time. One can always deal with the outliers on a case by case basis. A friend of mine once told me he liked to program where it would give a "bigger bang for the buck". He was not one to focus on the exceptions. In general, if you can handle the meaty part of the curve, you will be better served.
But what I observe far too much these days is an undue amount of attention given over to the rare cases and less attention spent on the mundane or routine cases. Get the routine cases right and you can achieve success 80% of the time. If 80% is working right, then you can spend some time on the other 20% and improve those chances. The Law of Diminishing Returns will kick in somewhere along the line and you will achieve less and less with more and more energy and attention and resources. You have to quit focusing on the exceptions at some point.
With the explosion of technology there are many ways for smaller parts of the bell curve to be heard. The Internet is an amazing equalizer! Small companies become big, local business goes worldwide, a mom and pop store in Pakistan sells goods to a family in Montana! Virtually anyone with a desire to be heard can voice his/her concerns to anyone in the world instantly. There is no need for government to champion any group's cause. They have that power themselves.
Government needs to refocus on the big part of the bell. The means are available for the smaller parts of the curve to be heard. There is no need to dwell on the exceptions, there will always be exceptions and they can never be completely prepared for. This is not a bad thing, it is just the way it is. Sometimes we have to accept that something has occurred that we did not anticipate and leave it at that. Focus on the "biggest bang for the buck" and be satisfied. No one on earth is God.
# posted by OH @ 7:02 AM 
