Averagarianism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:14, 24 June 2023

In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.

Index — Click ᐅ to expand: The Devil’s Advocate

Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Averagarianism
(n.)
The mistake of attributing an emergent mathematical property of a group to some or all the individual members of the group.

The following of reasoning from the general to the particular with statistics.

For example, the Bill Gates on a bus paradox: the average wealth of 99 bankrupts and one billionaire is ten million dollars. But not one individual in the group has an income anywhere close to ten million dollars.

See also the “average fighter pilot” that Gladwellian character from any number of popular science books.

Lesson one: do not manage from the average to the particular.

Then there is the story — oft repeated at a microscale, sans doubte — of the global investment bank which addressed its gender pay gap by laterally recruiting a new general counsel for ten million dollars. Remaining victims of gender pay disparity remained unmoved, and undercompensated.

Lesson two: definitely do not manage from the particular to the average.

Other reasons not to manage to the average

Rory Sutherland has an excellent snippet about the danger of managing toward averages. Among his reasons:

=Find a niche

The “average” is where everyone else will target their product. The markets will be mature, barriers to entry high, demand inelastic and margins slim.

Go instead for the tails: have the average follow you, not the other way around.

To use a skiing metaphor, the best entertainment to be had is not on the groomed blue motorway with the poseurs, learners, and homicidal teenagers, but off piste. You just have to know how to ski. So, learn, or take up another hobby.

Don’t race to the bottom

Convergence on the same place everyone is converging isn’t good business, but a recipe for bankruptcy. It is a race to the bottom. As with evolution, the secret is to realise the process is a continuous drift from the unsatisfactory status quo to something else that doesn’t have that drawback, as opposed to a process converging on a consensus. The ecosystem is not seeking an equilibrium. It is perpetually seeking to escape it.

Averagarianism

Not to be confused with tepid, cosy, easy mediocrity, which everyone loves.

Averagarianism that forces actually different people into generic categories. It imputes commonalities that don’t really exist. Sanding off contours and wonky borders to make everything regular simply because that suits the hyper-scaled prerogatives of commerce.

The expression “community” to describe a disparate group that, but for one salient feature, have absolutely nothing in common and would likely be at each other’s throats on any other issue — you know, the “air-breathing community”, the “US intelligence community” or the “political extremist community” is an averagarianist tell.

References

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|devil|}}{{author|Rory Sutherland}} has an excellent [https://youtu.be/UirCaM5kg9E snippet about the danger of managing toward averages]. Among his reasons:
+{{a|devil|}}{{dpn||n}}The mistake of attributing an emergent mathematical property of a group to some or all the individual members of the group.
-*The average — the top of the bell curve— is where everyone will be targeting their product, so existing markets will be mature, barriers to entry high, and margins will be the slimmest. Go for the tails, find the influencers and meet them drive your product into the mainstream. Have the average follow you, not the other way around.
-*Convergence on the same place everyone is converging isn’t good business, but a recipe for ''bankruptcy''. It is a race to the bottom. As with [[evolution]], the secret is to realise the process is a continuous drift ''from'' the unsatisfactory status quo to something else that doesn’t have that drawback, as opposed to a process converging on a consensus. The ecosystem is ''not'' seeking an equilibrium. It is perpetually seeking to ''escape'' it.
+The following of reasoning from the general to the particular with statistics.
+For example, the [[Bill Gates on a bus]] paradox: the  average wealth of 99 bankrupts and one billionaire is ten million dollars. But not one individual in the group has an income anywhere close to ten million dollars.
+See also the “average fighter pilot” that Gladwellian character from any number of popular science books.
+Lesson one: do not manage from the average to the particular.
+Then there is the story — oft repeated at a microscale, ''sans doubte'' — of the global investment bank which addressed its [[gender pay gap]] by laterally recruiting a new [[general counsel]] for ten million dollars. Remaining victims of gender pay disparity remained unmoved, and undercompensated.
+Lesson two: ''definitely'' do not manage from the particular to the average.
+===Other reasons not to manage to the average===
+{{author|Rory Sutherland}} has an excellent [https://youtu.be/UirCaM5kg9E snippet about the danger of managing toward averages]. Among his reasons:
+====Find a niche===
+The “average” is where everyone else will target their product. The markets will be mature, barriers to entry high, demand inelastic and margins slim.
+Go instead for the tails: have the average follow you, not the other way around.
+To use a skiing metaphor, the best entertainment to be had is not on the groomed blue motorway with the poseurs, learners, and homicidal teenagers, but [[off piste]]. You just have to know how to ski. So, learn, or take up another hobby.
+====Don’t race to the bottom====
+Convergence on the same place everyone is converging isn’t good business, but a recipe for ''bankruptcy''. It is a race to the bottom. As with [[evolution]], the secret is to realise the process is a continuous drift ''from'' the unsatisfactory status quo to something else that doesn’t have that drawback, as opposed to a process converging on a consensus. The ecosystem is ''not'' seeking an equilibrium. It is perpetually seeking to ''escape'' it.
 ===Averagarianism===
 Not to be confused with tepid, cosy, easy ''mediocrity'', which everyone loves.
-Averagarianismthat forces actually different people into generic categories. It imputes commonalities that don’t really exist. Sanding off contours and wonky borders to make everything regular simply because that suits the hyper-scaled prerogatives of commerce.
+Averagarianism that forces actually different people into generic categories. It imputes commonalities that don’t really exist. Sanding off contours and wonky borders to make everything regular simply because that suits the hyper-scaled prerogatives of commerce.
 The expression “community” to describe a disparate group that, but for one salient feature, have absolutely nothing in common and would likely be at each other’s throats on any other issue — you know, the “air-breathing community”, the “US intelligence community” or the “political extremist community” is an averagarianist tell.