The Pareto Principle, specifies that 80% of consequences come from 20% of the causes, asserting an unequal relationship between inputs and outputs. source
Most people have heard of the Pareto Principle or perhaps stated as the 80/20 Rule, where there is an asymmetry between effort and result. For example, 80% of sales come from 20% of clients, 80% of sales come from 20% of sales people and, 80% of complaints, come from 20% of the customers.
This rule came to mind recently in regards to how I spend my time on Hive and how I should reevaluate where I direct my energy, especially since I don't have that much to give. Over the last years, I have put a lot of time and effort into interacting with people and I have probably spent 80% of my time with 20% of those I commonly engage with. However, that 20% are also often the ones where the 80% of the complaints are.
As is perhaps human nature, we tend to spend a lot of our time engaging with people who disagree with us, because that is where more conversation lays, since we can say "I agree" with the people who get what we are talking about. However, I am going to reevaluate this at least partially, since at some point, I have to cut my losses.
You see, some people, no matter how much they claim to want help at times or how much evidence is provided contrary to their understanding, will just never make the shift, never change. That is okay, that is their decision or experience in life - but why should I spend any more of my time helping someone who will not change.
For example, if one of your friends was a drug addict, how long would you put your time energy and resources into helping them? What is the boundary of your support? You might say "there is no boundary" but, that is nonsense, because resources are limited and for example, if helping the friend would take away from being able to provide for your own family, the decision is quite simple. What makes it simpler is if time and time again when you have tried to help, the person makes it abundantly clear that they aren't going to change.
What is the return to keep trying?
Resources are scarce, especially when it comes to personal time and energy, and there is an opportunity cost to every activity. Helping someone that isn't going to change, takes away from helping those who might. Don't get me wrong, people don't have to change and each can do what they want, but doing what you want comes with consequences. There are outcomes to what we do and when what we are doing is not conducive to getting to where we might want to be, the cost of doing what we want it going to be having what we want.
For me, I get really tired of having the same conversations with a very small percentage of people over and over for years on end with no change in their world view. Not only that, some of them are gleefully stubborn, which just takes the support I have given and throws it back in my ace. That is fine, but there is no point for me to continue down that pathway, so I can disengage and leave them to their own devices, while I get on with my own life and interacting with people who are looking to improve their position in this life in some way.
In my opinion, the only thing we can consistently do for the entirety of our lives is change, and if we want to be able to have some influence over how we change, we need to learn. It is interesting that so many of the people who are seemingly and often openly struggling, are also the ones who are unwilling to learn a different way in an attempt to get a different outcome. However, they are often the ones who are willing to talk a lot and complain a lot about what other people are doing. Funny, eh?
I guess they are addicted to their thoughts and ways, and just like any addict, they can only be helped when they are ready to change. Saying they want a different outcome doesn't mean they are actually willing to do what is necessary to get one, so continuing to spend resources on them is essentially enabling them to remain the same, while taking away from others.
Why would I spend ten, twenty or thirty minutes of my day responding to people who have proven they are addicts, time and time again? I can do all of the other parts of my day, engage with the people who are genuinely looking to improve their lives and, spend that saved time doing something that benefits me or my family more. I can use that time that I have spent and essentially thrown down the drain, on improving the 80%, rather than the 20% who are not going to likely improve anyway.
What is interesting is when I have done this in the past, those people then complain that I am not supporting people, because I am not supporting them. This is disingenuous, which is par for the course really, but as I have said, process breeds result, and when people are consistently acting to self-sabotage their own goals, me pulling away is an outcome of their behavior. I am not obligated in any way to put up with any kind of behavior and while I am generally patient and give people the benefit of the doubt, eventually I will choose to move on when they have shown that they are unwilling to invest themselves.
This has nothing to do with them doing what I want them to do or advise, but if they aren't where they want to be yet are continually doing the same thing over the space of years - time to cut them loose and spend no more of the resources that I value on them. Time and energy are two of the most limited resources, yet some people believe that it is best spent on them, despite the track record of outcomes that it is likely not. Often we end up spending a lot f our valuable resources on people who don't necessarily add value back.
For example, when I was around 18, I was in hospital five or six times with pancreatitis caused by medication for a different chronic illness. I weighed 47 kilos and I had to be without food and water for five days while the inflammation subsided, other than a saline drip. In the bed next to me, there was a man in his 40s with pancreatitis too, but I noticed he had a different drip and asked the nurse about it. It wasn't saline, it was a nutrient rich mix that would keep his weight up and help him recover faster. When I asked why I didn't have the same, she said that it was because it was more expensive and because this guy was an alcoholic, he wasn't feeding himself properly so they were doing what they could while he was there. Pancreatitis is caused by excessive drinking in about 25% of cases and, even while he was in hospital he was going outside to drink and smoke - Smoking is another correlated cause.
My point is, there is a kid laying in a bed with a future in front of him with a condition caused through no fault of his own, but the resources go to the person who has made choices and continues to make choices that will lead him back there time and time again, until death. Each time, he will get additional resources, while people who would benefit more and are likely to return the benefit in kind later, go without.
I haven't thought about that twenty five year old story in a long time, but I should recall it more often. Similar has happened many times over the years in many different ways too, but we tend to be driven as a society and individual to help those that struggle the most, which is great, but we aren't taught to discern between who will use the opportunity for bettering their lives, or who will waste it. If resources are completely unlimited, that doesn't matter much, but when there is scarcity, whether real or engineered, it should be considered, otherwise we can end up helping all and nobody at the same time.
Some people might see this view as uncharitable in some way, but that is not the case. What is uncharitable is when people expect resources to be spent on them when they already know that they aren't going to use them well, since they know they aren't going to change. If we aren't willing to take responsibility for our own improvement, why should anyone invest their limited resources in us?
I don't know if I explained this well, nor what the percentages are, but with limited time and energy, as well as a host of other scarce resources, I am going to be more discerning with where I spend them.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
