Not so long ago, I was sitting around with two of my friends, chatting. One of my friend was an FTUI student and he’s a good Dota player. He was talking about one Dota round he had at a tournament held at FTUI. To make it short, there were five people in his team: two of them were pro (and three including my friend), and the other two were a kind of retired player, to put it in another way, those two hadn’t play the game for quite a long time and were not on their best performance. My friend told us how the battle went, and there’s an interesting point came out in the middle of his story.
My friend told us that, since the two retired player were comparatively weaker and easier to get killed in the game, the other three bought some expensive items to boost their performance in the game, thus preventing them from getting bullied by the enemies. His argument for that strategy was a weak spot on a team could bring the whole team down, so by covering the weak spot (helping the weak players), his team would have a better chance of survival, and winning the game.
But my other friend on the discussion, a student of FHUI, disagreed. He believed, like the Pareto principle suggest that we should focus on the profitable 20% and ignoring the 80% less profitable, the better strategy should have been by empowering the pros. Spending money on the weaklings would only restrain the pros from securing victory for the team and even putting the team in great turmoil, for the enemies are getting more and more powerful as the game proceeds.
They are two different strategies, taken from two different point of view, and I believe very relevant in reality, not just in that game. Some country gives tax cut for rich individuals believing these people would generate more profit for the good of the people, some country taxes this kind of people more to help those leaving on poverty. Some school focused more resources on brilliant students, giving them better teacher, better facility, better than lesser students, but some school gives extra lessons and more care on those with learning difficulties.
Each of these strategies yields different result. But which one is better? I believe everybody wouldn’t have the same answer on that question.
So what do you think? Support the greater or help the lesser? Or is it possible and efficient to pursue both strategy considering our resource constraint?