# 80/20 is the new Half-Ass

Original: https://swyx.io/8020
Published: 2021-04-28

> Don't spend your life spraying 20% effort all over the place, hoping for 80% results, only to look back and wonder why you never hit 100% on anything.

The [Pareto Principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) is making you lazy.

Let me be more precise: The [Pareto distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution) is a useful model of power law effects in real life. But people are using it poorly, primarily as an *excuse* to be lazy.

This thought was triggered by [Shaan Puri's newsletter](https://www.shaanpuri.com/) featuring [Steph Smith](https://stephsmith.io/) this week (both of whom I greatly respect, this is a jumping off point, not a dunk):

{% twitter 1386071726279127041 %}

You hear 80/20 rules [a lot](https://twitter.com/search?q=80%2F20%20filter%3Afollows&src=typed_query) in [premium mediocre](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2017/08/17/the-premium-mediocre-life-of-maya-millennial/) circles. If you want to signal that you are smarter than the average 80/20 bear, you might refer to the "[high order bit](https://twitter.com/search?q=%22high%20order%20bit%22&src=typed_query)" instead. Same shit, different status signal.

The spirit of the idea is sound. It's great for 280 character tweets and 5 minute soundbites. But idk if it's good for people who finish things. At best, I don't think it's sufficient for execution. At worst, it's just intellectually dishonest.

Look at reactions like [this](https://twitter.com/jasonleowsg/status/1386209784626434050?s=20): 

> "Love this [80/20] framing! Great way to remove the fluff and get to the core".

I'm sorry but the remaining 80% is not "the fluff":

- People forget that *the devil is in the details*. The first 20% everyone knows to say on Twitter. The remaining 80% is the ugly, nasty, hacky, unglamorous shit nobody talks about unless you've got time to sweat the details (*unless you've already moved on to the next 80/20?*). 
  - The more popular the 80/20 meme becomes, the less competition you will have as someone who knows how to take things to the finish line.
- People forget that causal attribution is subject to [narrative fallacy](https://fs.blog/2016/04/narrative-fallacy/). Ask a successful person what their 80/20 was and they'll confidently tell you in hindsight. The truth is at the time they had 4 other bets also going on that just didn't work out. 
  - The popular saying in medical school is that "[50% of what you learn will be wrong — we just don't know which 50%](https://blogs.bmj.com/pmj/2014/05/30/50-of-what-you-are-taught-is-wrong/)". And that is in goddamn *medical science* with double blind randomized clinical trials. We don't have 1% of that rigor in popular anecdata which you base your 80/20 inferences on.
- People forget that distributions aren't always Pareto. When you assert that "an 80/20" exists, you are asserting useful [dimensionality reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionality_reduction). Sometimes complex, or even linear, things just do not have an "80/20". 
  - The [FAA's Parachute Rigger Handbook](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/prh_change1.pdf) has 350 pages of densely packed advice. Please **do not try to 80/20 your parachute packing**.

I'm reminded of that classic movie Click, where  Adam Sandler finds a magic remote that lets him "80/20 his life":

{% youtube 5fjha1FnlBU %}

Don't spend your life spraying 20% effort all over the place, hoping for 80% results, only to look back and wonder why you never hit 100% on anything.

> Edit: The always excellent David Golden wrote a [wonderful response to this piece](https://xdg.me/80-20/) highlighting the cases where 80/20 is actually very justified, and I agree!

> This topic is loosely related to Epistemology, which I've [written about briefly](https://www.swyx.io/first-principles-approach/#epistemology).