Individual differences in lifetime output are substantial. So skewed is the cross-sectional distribution of total contributions that a small percentage of the workers in any given domain is responsible for the bulk of the work. Generally, the top 10% of the most prolific elite can be credited with around 50% of all contributions, whereas the bottom 50% of the least productive workers can claim only 15% of the total work and the most productive contributor is usually about 100 times more prolific than the least.
Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after century of research
Dean Keith Simonton
I've seen this sort of thing before. According to various studies a few of us are hyper productive, a large number of us are sort of productive, and the rest of us aren't very productive at all.
This makes sense. Everyone has worked a job where some people work way less hard than you. Or been in a classroom where everyone knows where the slackers are.
This leads to a paradox.
On the one hand, we all know some people produce more than others. On the other hand it's feels inherently unfair for a small number of people to have lot more than others.
I think this paradox is one of the defining crises of our times.
If you liked this post, consider signing up for my newsletter. You'll get more goodies like this.
Comments