The no-pareto rule

20% of X contributes to 80% of Y. This is Pareto rule and it applies satisfactorily in business/work. 20% of your products contribute to 80% of revenue. 20% of customers contribute to 80% of business. 20% of things you do, contribute to 80% of your results and so on. 

Its also straightforward where Pareto does not apply. In deeply emotional spaces- You cant say 20% of your kids contribute to 80% of happiness. Although I wonder if it is just a matter of having less than 10 kids. Maybe if you had 16 kids, the Pareto principle will apply. (So its true even in emotional spaces? ) As a rule, for less than 10 of anything, either it is too hard to quantify or it is likely to be unique/dissimilar enough that you cant apply the rule. For more than 10 of course, there is potentially a bit more homogeneity and thus the rule starts coming in. 

I am thinking of a place where Pareto doesn't apply even when the numbers are greater.  Are we unable to devote focus to more than 20% things ? The other nuance with Pareto is that a lot of times we dont know which is the 20% that works unless we do 100% of the things. So while it may be true that only 20% yields results we cant just do away with 80% 

If there is a point to this post, I havent found it yet. 

Why I like Daphne Bridgerton

 The biggest criticism of the female lead of Bridgerton Season1 is that she is too bland and delicate. In other words she is too much of a girl. People love feisty spunky heroines - Elizabeth from P&P or her Bridgerton equivalent- Kate Sharma. They are defiant, strong, opinionated characters and dont conform to what society expects of them. If they were to be born in 90s, they would be the conformists, but by virtue of being born in Regency Britain or wherever they are considered rebels. 

Daphne and her ilk on the other hand are conformists, even within their society. Their expectations and desires are more or less in alignment with society or their mothers expect from them. Usually the language of the TV shows portray such characters as insipid with no ability for original thought. Mostly they exist as a contrast for the feisty character, to show us what the heroine is not. However Bridgerton the TV show takes a slightly different stance on the heroine. They have made her a conformist heroine, but one with a mind of her own. One who makes her way in the restricted opportunities open to her, without whining about how unfair life is to women. 

This makes sense, because of course most women are smart, know what they want.  And whatever the reasons may be, a lot of their desires maybe similar to what society wants for them. Daphne recognises that she is a conformist, and she is not dismissive of her spunky sister ( Eloise). The problem with non-conformists is that they come from a place of condescension towards the conformists rather than treating it as a preference. Daphne in understanding herself and the others in her universe, comes across as someone you would like to be around because she is authentic and understanding, rather than pissed off and intellectual.  

Not sure why the writers chose this heroine, because the book heroine is similar to Kate than the TV Daphne. But am glad they did. And I think it is important to normalise that it is okay to be conformist. Being in majority doesn't necessarily make you inferior or mediocre. What's important is to be authentic to who you are, and that is sufficient.