Not necessarily. I know that if I get really angry, I sometimes make (generally small) decisions out of a desire to hurt whatever I am angry at. I don’t think that counts as “well-meaning”.
Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.
Or about a definition of a (local) maximum that says that all other (adjacent) options are worse?
That’s a ridiculously pessimistic thing to say
I suspect you read this as “most (well-meaning) potential changes” while The_Lion means it as “most (random) potential changes”.
Most random changes to highly organized structures would, indeed, be awful.
All the changes that people make are “well-meaning”, even those being made by ISIS. A word that better makes the distinction is “intentional”.
Not necessarily. I know that if I get really angry, I sometimes make (generally small) decisions out of a desire to hurt whatever I am angry at. I don’t think that counts as “well-meaning”.
Depends on your definition of “well” and that line of approach would lead us into the usual definitional morass :-/
And, technically speaking, there is also compulsive behaviour.
How would you feel about this?
Or about a definition of a (local) maximum that says that all other (adjacent) options are worse?
I don’t have any particular feelings about since I don’t see how you are relating it to the quotes. Could you please clarify?
I believe it’s a concept and reckon it’s a pretty good Wikipedia article...