Perhaps it is no surprise to people that the creator of the Pareto principal, the famous 80 20 Rule, started out his professional career as a civil engineer. Vilfredo Pareto’s name always sounded to me like a fictional mob character out of the Godfather. That’s not so nuts. Pareto was personally obsessed with the statistics of ownership and income distribution – maybe even to the level of a personal embrace of the Politics of Envy. Vilfredo was a child of his time.
As early to middle 20th century history is the Dark Ages to some folks, it is no surprise that to this day humanists, socialists, communists, yesterday’s fascists, and even today’s Anti-fa all argue a narrative with politicized versions of Pareto’s
Utility of Preference
Roughly 80% of effects come from 20% of the causes.
One could say a principal about the Utility of Preference too easily becomes the Political Pragmatics of Social Purpose in the hands of the unprincipled when fostered on the ignorant and unwary. History also says that Pareto, a famous economist, stumbled into the same ditch of his own making.
Is it really a good idea to believe that mathematic tools and phenomena by themselves can become a sound foundation for the development of sound civic and social policy?
Let me paraphrase Groucho Marx, George Carlin, and others…
Social Engineering - These two words don’t make sense together.
We want them to.
We are taught they do.
This is a…
Humanist Narrative Construct
The terms together are a form of the common humanist philosophic sophistry.
The illusion of a higher meaning for social engineering makes the questions of our personal moral responsibilities and behaviors appear rational and most often, in institutional contexts, even separate from the individual.
The terms employed together only serve to validate our false belief that our intentions and our accusations towards others are more significant than our actions.
We all must acknowledge, confess, and testify that the above is never true.
It is no surprise then that the institutional pursuit of humanist social engineering continues to generate unexpected and unpleasant circumstances. We cannot solve real problems by treating the symptoms of assumed intention and false accusation.
I am saying that social engineering in the secular humanist context is not applied science. It only pretends to be science to avoid these more important questions of personal faith and accountability.
It is very interesting testament to human endeavor that the study of human circumstance has generated some of the most intriguing mathematics from Gauze, Pareto, Levy, Mandelbrot, and Taleb.
It remains a sad fact that…
Most Fake News Begins as Fake Science
Maybe we should ask Google, Facebook and Amazon about that?
You could just Tweet this.