11 ms·

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority [pdf]

135 points by kawera 11y ago

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
guard-of-terra 11y ago
This is why non-minorities should set limits for tolerance to avoid recursive renormalization as described in the article. Otherwise we end up being different people without desiring that. Of course we should let good examples transform our society, but not opinionated minorities.
- danharaj 11y ago
  There are no non-minorities in the abstract. Majority and minority only arise when one names the thing that differentiates them. What examples do you have in mind?
danharaj 11y ago
The basic principle of Radical Democracy, which is different from Liberal Democracy, is relevant here: > "Radical democracy" means "the root of democracy." Laclau and Mouffe claim that liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build consensus, oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. In the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it. (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy This article can be interpreted as evidence that radical democracy actually works and the root of democracy ought to be a diversity of minorities all advocating for things we could call their essential beliefs, and a healthy, free society is one in which on any given issue the majority is flexible enough to accommodate minorities that have stronger preferences. That is, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't one that tends to homogeneity but is instead driven by its heterogeneity. Furthermore, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't based on rigid principles, but flexibility and the ability to evolve its structures to accommodate more and more diverse groups. Seems legit to me. Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence.
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  > Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence. Or isolationism. Like how Japan essentially kept its borders closed for centuries.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Borders can only be kept closed with violence. Incidentally, Japan's borders were opened with violence or at least the threat of violence.
- vlehto 11y ago
  Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy. To me the most homogeneous societies seem to be frontiersmen living in extremely harsh places. The Sami, Pygmy tribes and Inuits we're left alone for most of history. Nobody can fight off immigration indefinitely if there is some reason for them to come. The most violent civilizations in history didn't seem to care who they oppressed. Roman Empire, Mongol empire and British empire had no problems taking different ethnicities as subjects. Some of them even had somewhat varied ethnic makeup in the power-base of the empire. For example Romans had Latins, Etruscan people and Greek city states assimilated into Rome proper. This idea that ethnic makeup dictates success and violence of society is essentially racist. It doesn't really matter if you advocate a mix of ethnicity, you are still trying to sell policy with race. The only non-racist stance is to assume that ethnicity and success have no correlation what so ever.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    I think it's interesting that you assumed ethnic minority/majority when I had in mind all sorts of minority/majority contrasts. > Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy. What? I'm going to ignore your nonsensical question and merely clarify what I meant: In the traditional logic of democracy, consensus is the ultimate goal. It makes sense to me and you that a process that seeks consensus can function and effectively govern, probably because we have been raised to learn this logic since a young age. Radical democracy turns this on its head: The essence of democracy is plurality that defies consensus. I don't think it is intuitive that this could function on large scales. I think Taleb's article gives evidence that yes, this can work, because the real dynamics of society are not driven by consensus building, but by minorities advocating for themselves. I am not saying the article is explicitly supporting radical democracy, but it gives us an empirical point of view from which to analyze its merits.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dasyatidprime 11y ago
C2Wiki has some discussion of a related phenomenon of asymmetrical decision-making: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LeastFlexibleProtocolWins http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LeastFlexibleProtocolWins The surrounding cluster of pages there may also be useful for people curious about this topic.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
Taleb should include the famous line from Shaw's Man and Superman that fits this idea: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- privong 11y ago
  I think the idea is accurate. But it's worth noting that not everything done/advocated by the unreasonable person is "progress".
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    Progress is just change that the writer agrees with.There is no objective morality and the ""long arch to justice" is just a random walk.
    - RodericDay 11y ago
      This is an ignorant thing to say. "Moral realism" vs. "Moral anti-realism" is a discussion that, afaik, Moral realists have the upper hand in.
      - nostrebored 11y ago
        The third Reich was a very progressive society by many of today's metrics until the holocaust happened in the name of "progress." It's a very vague term with any number of interpretations.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - grinnbearit 11y ago
        Moral realists have the upper hand? Are you willing to share some articles covering the topic? For example, http://slatestarcodex.com/ http://slatestarcodex.com/ and http://lesswrong.com/ http://lesswrong.com/ have plenty of essays arguing for moral subjectivity.
temo4ka 11y ago
Also next chapter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10455681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10455681
asgard1024 11y ago
So, the "tyranny of the majority" is an illusion of those who are highly intolerant?
- jokoon 11y ago
  Inaction and the consent of the majority is more what you mean. The majority doesn't force anything on you, it's just that it would be counter productive to fight the current. There are accepted norms which are accepted by the majority for historical reasons, but also because people believe the norm seems both honest and accepted by many of who they see as honest people who are similar to them. So the norm is not just something you agree with, it's something consider to be decent and can be consented to. In society there is always one big dominant river which current is going in one direction. That's the social contract. If you don't have one rule for everyone, there is no society.
probdist 11y ago
I'm interested in thinking through several examples on this subject. One example that comes to mind with me is the campaign by many university student groups across the country to encourage endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies. For example: http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/ http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/ http://www.fossilfreemit.org/ http://www.fossilfreemit.org/ . The the vocal minority on this subject is very strongly in favor of their opinion (divestment), whereas the larger mass of students mostly doesn't care about the issue or perhaps leans to not divesting but only slightly. It is interesting to consider the more detailed results of this where people don't have 0 cost acquiescence, for example if people really wanted some non-kosher soda it would still exist in the marketplace. It is also interesting how this phenomena occurs in voting schemes where you have a fixed number of voting points to distribute over all issues up for consideration. In such systems people can have their minority issues more strongly represented.
anon4 11y ago
I wish Taleb would stop making up weird phrases and pushing them in his writing. What does "skin in the game" even mean? I mean linguistically. It's a weird phrase that I still have trouble parsing and have to stop and think every time I see it. Why not "involvement"? Why "game"? Which meaning of "game" is even in this? Does he mean "have a portion of the skin of the game animal that would be killed at the end of the hunt allotted to you"? Or is it "to wager some of one's own skin on the outcome of a game"? But then your skin isn't really in the game per se, is it? As in, it doesn't take active part in the game, right? So how is it "in" the "game"? It just hurts my head :(
- tetrep 11y ago
  It's not a phrase made up by Taleb. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase)
- Aloha 11y ago
  Skin in the game is a pretty well known idiom. So I don't think he made it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_%28phrase%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_%28phrase%29
- neffy 11y ago
  He's also a trader - "talking his book". http://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-one-s-book http://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-one-s-book
- dubhrosa 11y ago
  Having 'skin in the game' means having a stake in the outcome, e.g. "Paul should invest in the company, if he's going to sit on the board he should have some skin in the game" It's a really, really common phrase on trading floors and among business investor types, at least in London. But your point stands, it's not a phrase that I feel belongs in well written prose.
oldboyFX 11y ago
Political correctness is another great example of how the most (in)tolerant wins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM
- vlehto 11y ago
  A friend of mine is some kind of leader in border patrol. He said that he knows he is in real trouble the moment his dudes stop trash talking him. In most sausage fests it's like this. Offensive remark is actually flattering, as it's completely based on assumption that the receiving party is confident enough to take the joke. It's at least seemingly male cultural phenomena. Or alternatively women are really really careful about it.
  - MollyR 11y ago
    I've noticed this too. I have a couple guy friends.They are really good friends, but they trash talk each other . . . all the time . . . They usually laugh uproariously about it too. If you didn't know them, you'd think they hated each other. It's definitely a different way of social interaction than I have with my friends.
teddyh 11y ago
A very related concept is the Overton window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
Why do I care if I eat Halal or Kosher, if I don't care whether I eat Halal or Kosher? Isn't that the bottom line? That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid. Would not an unregulated democratic society not care to cater to the wishes of a minority? In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. That a minority did follow it would not matter, the majority had ruled. Individual and minority rights are protected in the US is because there are laws in place to restrict the simply majority rule to prevent the above from occurring. Those controls were put in place having recognized the limitations of majority rule in antiquity, it is not a property of a democratic society. Apartheid was racial segregation in South Africa and doesn't appear to apply here.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    > In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. The thing is, you can't "oberve" kosher or halal unless you actually believe in them. I'm neither jewish nor muslim, but I was brought up christian, so here's an example I'm familiar with: if a priest sprinkled my food with holy water, my only concern would be hygiene; if the water was clean and he hadn't, say, used it to wash his flock's feet beforeheand, then I could care less. Or I might mind if the food was such that sprinkling water over it could make it worse somehow- I can't think of an example. The point is, I don't believe in the supernatural. Some people do and they insist on imbuing real-world stuff with supernatural meaning. As long as the way they choose to do so has no real-world, tangible effect on me then I don't care, they can knock themselves out. In short: people can believe anything they like about our common lives. As long as it's supernatural, it doesn't affect me. It's not real. I don't care about what's not real. Accordingly, I don't see why halal and kosher should be made illegal. People should be free to believe in the supernatural if they so choose. Why would a democracy impose a specific set of beliefs on its people? In what sense would you say that such a democracy could be considered "unregulated" (let alone a democracy in the first place)?
dsfyu404ed 11y ago
tl;dr It's like a committee revising something they don't have strong feelings about just to get a member with a strong opinion to STFU about it
hibikir 11y ago
What interests me is the opposite situation: When a minority imposes itself not because they can force themselves on others, because they are immune to external influence. It's the same principle. We see a lot of that in OSS, and I've seen it happen in companies: Bad behavior designed to make dissenting opinion go away (when sometimes the dissenting opinion is to just not be insulting), runs amok, and forces the lowest common denominator of behavior. So IMO, it's not really about tolerance or intolerance, but about which side allows itself to be influenced, either by law, or pressure. When enough pressure to make someone resign is stronger, you end up with an environment where the intolerant wins. But in an environment where this doesn't happen, it's the people who have more to lose by leaving that wins. You can imagine how that is not helpful in a company: It's normally your best employees that have better alternatives when they leave. Another important part is whether we really know everyone's opinion. When an opinion is considered impolite, we will think it's less popular than it really is, because people that share it will just be quite about it. It's one of the reasons we've seen quick changes of opinion in topics like Gay marriage: It's not that opinions change that quickly, but that what was considered the "polite opinion" has had a big reversal. So it isn't just about tolerance. Ultimately what matters is, who really wins? An OSS project that kicks people out, for one mechanism or the other, wins when it keeps the most value. Maybe removing dissent is helpful. Maybe the dissent was making things better. So whether this effect is good, or bad, happens in a case by case basis.
erikb 11y ago
The title seems to be about something totally different than the article. Does the most powerful minority win? Sure. Does the most intolerant and stubborn win? Certainly not, at least in the long run. Yes, you can smoke at a trainstation, or suicide bomb yourself to death in front of a football stadium. But that is only a success of your agenda in the very short term. If most of your coworkers are non smokers and you annoy them too often with your smoke, you lose their support in the long run and thereby your ability to push your agenda. On the other hand we know that the straight white male is the default for our society beside being the biggest group, reason being that his agenda is integrated well in our world definition through media, history, etc. He doesn't win, because he's more stubborn. He wins because 90% of movies show him as the role model. You can be a very stubborn black woman but that won't make you rich and won't make people try to be like you, it won't enable you to push your agenda.
- pedalpete 11y ago
  I thought something similar, but upon reading your comment and closer inspection, it seems Taleb is focusing on rules not actions (though I only got part way through the article). For example, eating Kosher or Halal is a rule and he is saying that by a minority following this rule, all of us end up by default following the rule. Suicide bombing or smoking is an action which we don't inherently take. We are eating already, so eating kosher or halal isn't a huge difference.
crystal2 11y ago
I saw this happening in real-life. A minority political party insists on dividing a state and a minority of people do support it. Majority parties didn't dare to go against it for the fear of loosing votes from those minority people. When a referendum was called for, no one spoke against the division though a large majority of people and political parties did feel it as crazy. Also they didn't believe it would really happen. But it happened and the state is divided against the feelings of the people. People are still a state of shock.

135 points by kawera 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

This is why non-minorities should set limits for tolerance to avoid recursive renormalization as described in the article. Otherwise we end up being different people without desiring that. Of course we should let good examples transform our society, but not opinionated minorities.

danharaj 11y ago
There are no non-minorities in the abstract. Majority and minority only arise when one names the thing that differentiates them. What examples do you have in mind?

danharaj 11y ago

The basic principle of Radical Democracy, which is different from Liberal Democracy, is relevant here: > "Radical democracy" means "the root of democracy." Laclau and Mouffe claim that liberal democracy and deliberative democracy, in their attempts to build consensus, oppress differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews. In the world, in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. Radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but is dependent on it. (Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_democracy This article can be interpreted as evidence that radical democracy actually works and the root of democracy ought to be a diversity of minorities all advocating for things we could call their essential beliefs, and a healthy, free society is one in which on any given issue the majority is flexible enough to accommodate minorities that have stronger preferences. That is, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't one that tends to homogeneity but is instead driven by its heterogeneity. Furthermore, a prosperous, cohesive society isn't based on rigid principles, but flexibility and the ability to evolve its structures to accommodate more and more diverse groups. Seems legit to me. Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence.

Natanael_L 11y ago
> Most homogeneous groups in history seem to either arise from a founder effect or maintain their homogeneity through dehumanizing tribalism and Incredible Violence. Or isolationism. Like how Japan essentially kept its borders closed for centuries.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Borders can only be kept closed with violence. Incidentally, Japan's borders were opened with violence or at least the threat of violence.
vlehto 11y ago
Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy. To me the most homogeneous societies seem to be frontiersmen living in extremely harsh places. The Sami, Pygmy tribes and Inuits we're left alone for most of history. Nobody can fight off immigration indefinitely if there is some reason for them to come. The most violent civilizations in history didn't seem to care who they oppressed. Roman Empire, Mongol empire and British empire had no problems taking different ethnicities as subjects. Some of them even had somewhat varied ethnic makeup in the power-base of the empire. For example Romans had Latins, Etruscan people and Greek city states assimilated into Rome proper. This idea that ethnic makeup dictates success and violence of society is essentially racist. It doesn't really matter if you advocate a mix of ethnicity, you are still trying to sell policy with race. The only non-racist stance is to assume that ethnicity and success have no correlation what so ever.
- danharaj 11y ago
  I think it's interesting that you assumed ethnic minority/majority when I had in mind all sorts of minority/majority contrasts. > Do you think only burqa wearing Muslim society is prosperous and cohesive? That seems to be only way how that Taleb article could support Radical Democracy. What? I'm going to ignore your nonsensical question and merely clarify what I meant: In the traditional logic of democracy, consensus is the ultimate goal. It makes sense to me and you that a process that seeks consensus can function and effectively govern, probably because we have been raised to learn this logic since a young age. Radical democracy turns this on its head: The essence of democracy is plurality that defies consensus. I don't think it is intuitive that this could function on large scales. I think Taleb's article gives evidence that yes, this can work, because the real dynamics of society are not driven by consensus building, but by minorities advocating for themselves. I am not saying the article is explicitly supporting radical democracy, but it gives us an empirical point of view from which to analyze its merits.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dasyatidprime 11y ago

C2Wiki has some discussion of a related phenomenon of asymmetrical decision-making: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LeastFlexibleProtocolWins http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LeastFlexibleProtocolWins The surrounding cluster of pages there may also be useful for people curious about this topic.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dang 11y ago

Taleb should include the famous line from Shaw's Man and Superman that fits this idea: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

privong 11y ago
I think the idea is accurate. But it's worth noting that not everything done/advocated by the unreasonable person is "progress".
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  Progress is just change that the writer agrees with.There is no objective morality and the ""long arch to justice" is just a random walk.
  - RodericDay 11y ago
    This is an ignorant thing to say. "Moral realism" vs. "Moral anti-realism" is a discussion that, afaik, Moral realists have the upper hand in.
    - nostrebored 11y ago
      The third Reich was a very progressive society by many of today's metrics until the holocaust happened in the name of "progress." It's a very vague term with any number of interpretations.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - grinnbearit 11y ago
      Moral realists have the upper hand? Are you willing to share some articles covering the topic? For example, http://slatestarcodex.com/ http://slatestarcodex.com/ and http://lesswrong.com/ http://lesswrong.com/ have plenty of essays arguing for moral subjectivity.

temo4ka 11y ago

Also next chapter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10455681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10455681

asgard1024 11y ago

So, the "tyranny of the majority" is an illusion of those who are highly intolerant?

jokoon 11y ago
Inaction and the consent of the majority is more what you mean. The majority doesn't force anything on you, it's just that it would be counter productive to fight the current. There are accepted norms which are accepted by the majority for historical reasons, but also because people believe the norm seems both honest and accepted by many of who they see as honest people who are similar to them. So the norm is not just something you agree with, it's something consider to be decent and can be consented to. In society there is always one big dominant river which current is going in one direction. That's the social contract. If you don't have one rule for everyone, there is no society.

probdist 11y ago

I'm interested in thinking through several examples on this subject. One example that comes to mind with me is the campaign by many university student groups across the country to encourage endowments to divest from fossil fuel companies. For example: http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/ http://www.fossilfreeuc.org/ http://www.fossilfreemit.org/ http://www.fossilfreemit.org/ . The the vocal minority on this subject is very strongly in favor of their opinion (divestment), whereas the larger mass of students mostly doesn't care about the issue or perhaps leans to not divesting but only slightly. It is interesting to consider the more detailed results of this where people don't have 0 cost acquiescence, for example if people really wanted some non-kosher soda it would still exist in the marketplace. It is also interesting how this phenomena occurs in voting schemes where you have a fixed number of voting points to distribute over all issues up for consideration. In such systems people can have their minority issues more strongly represented.

anon4 11y ago

I wish Taleb would stop making up weird phrases and pushing them in his writing. What does "skin in the game" even mean? I mean linguistically. It's a weird phrase that I still have trouble parsing and have to stop and think every time I see it. Why not "involvement"? Why "game"? Which meaning of "game" is even in this? Does he mean "have a portion of the skin of the game animal that would be killed at the end of the hunt allotted to you"? Or is it "to wager some of one's own skin on the outcome of a game"? But then your skin isn't really in the game per se, is it? As in, it doesn't take active part in the game, right? So how is it "in" the "game"? It just hurts my head :(

tetrep 11y ago
It's not a phrase made up by Taleb. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_(phrase)
Aloha 11y ago
Skin in the game is a pretty well known idiom. So I don't think he made it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_%28phrase%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_game_%28phrase%29
neffy 11y ago
He's also a trader - "talking his book". http://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-one-s-book http://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-one-s-book
dubhrosa 11y ago
Having 'skin in the game' means having a stake in the outcome, e.g. "Paul should invest in the company, if he's going to sit on the board he should have some skin in the game" It's a really, really common phrase on trading floors and among business investor types, at least in London. But your point stands, it's not a phrase that I feel belongs in well written prose.

oldboyFX 11y ago

Political correctness is another great example of how the most (in)tolerant wins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

vlehto 11y ago
A friend of mine is some kind of leader in border patrol. He said that he knows he is in real trouble the moment his dudes stop trash talking him. In most sausage fests it's like this. Offensive remark is actually flattering, as it's completely based on assumption that the receiving party is confident enough to take the joke. It's at least seemingly male cultural phenomena. Or alternatively women are really really careful about it.
- MollyR 11y ago
  I've noticed this too. I have a couple guy friends.They are really good friends, but they trash talk each other . . . all the time . . . They usually laugh uproariously about it too. If you didn't know them, you'd think they hated each other. It's definitely a different way of social interaction than I have with my friends.

teddyh 11y ago

A very related concept is the Overton window: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

Why do I care if I eat Halal or Kosher, if I don't care whether I eat Halal or Kosher? Isn't that the bottom line? That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid.

mhurron 11y ago
> That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid. Would not an unregulated democratic society not care to cater to the wishes of a minority? In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. That a minority did follow it would not matter, the majority had ruled. Individual and minority rights are protected in the US is because there are laws in place to restrict the simply majority rule to prevent the above from occurring. Those controls were put in place having recognized the limitations of majority rule in antiquity, it is not a property of a democratic society. Apartheid was racial segregation in South Africa and doesn't appear to apply here.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  > In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. The thing is, you can't "oberve" kosher or halal unless you actually believe in them. I'm neither jewish nor muslim, but I was brought up christian, so here's an example I'm familiar with: if a priest sprinkled my food with holy water, my only concern would be hygiene; if the water was clean and he hadn't, say, used it to wash his flock's feet beforeheand, then I could care less. Or I might mind if the food was such that sprinkling water over it could make it worse somehow- I can't think of an example. The point is, I don't believe in the supernatural. Some people do and they insist on imbuing real-world stuff with supernatural meaning. As long as the way they choose to do so has no real-world, tangible effect on me then I don't care, they can knock themselves out. In short: people can believe anything they like about our common lives. As long as it's supernatural, it doesn't affect me. It's not real. I don't care about what's not real. Accordingly, I don't see why halal and kosher should be made illegal. People should be free to believe in the supernatural if they so choose. Why would a democracy impose a specific set of beliefs on its people? In what sense would you say that such a democracy could be considered "unregulated" (let alone a democracy in the first place)?

dsfyu404ed 11y ago

tl;dr It's like a committee revising something they don't have strong feelings about just to get a member with a strong opinion to STFU about it

hibikir 11y ago

What interests me is the opposite situation: When a minority imposes itself not because they can force themselves on others, because they are immune to external influence. It's the same principle. We see a lot of that in OSS, and I've seen it happen in companies: Bad behavior designed to make dissenting opinion go away (when sometimes the dissenting opinion is to just not be insulting), runs amok, and forces the lowest common denominator of behavior. So IMO, it's not really about tolerance or intolerance, but about which side allows itself to be influenced, either by law, or pressure. When enough pressure to make someone resign is stronger, you end up with an environment where the intolerant wins. But in an environment where this doesn't happen, it's the people who have more to lose by leaving that wins. You can imagine how that is not helpful in a company: It's normally your best employees that have better alternatives when they leave. Another important part is whether we really know everyone's opinion. When an opinion is considered impolite, we will think it's less popular than it really is, because people that share it will just be quite about it. It's one of the reasons we've seen quick changes of opinion in topics like Gay marriage: It's not that opinions change that quickly, but that what was considered the "polite opinion" has had a big reversal. So it isn't just about tolerance. Ultimately what matters is, who really wins? An OSS project that kicks people out, for one mechanism or the other, wins when it keeps the most value. Maybe removing dissent is helpful. Maybe the dissent was making things better. So whether this effect is good, or bad, happens in a case by case basis.

erikb 11y ago

The title seems to be about something totally different than the article. Does the most powerful minority win? Sure. Does the most intolerant and stubborn win? Certainly not, at least in the long run. Yes, you can smoke at a trainstation, or suicide bomb yourself to death in front of a football stadium. But that is only a success of your agenda in the very short term. If most of your coworkers are non smokers and you annoy them too often with your smoke, you lose their support in the long run and thereby your ability to push your agenda. On the other hand we know that the straight white male is the default for our society beside being the biggest group, reason being that his agenda is integrated well in our world definition through media, history, etc. He doesn't win, because he's more stubborn. He wins because 90% of movies show him as the role model. You can be a very stubborn black woman but that won't make you rich and won't make people try to be like you, it won't enable you to push your agenda.

pedalpete 11y ago
I thought something similar, but upon reading your comment and closer inspection, it seems Taleb is focusing on rules not actions (though I only got part way through the article). For example, eating Kosher or Halal is a rule and he is saying that by a minority following this rule, all of us end up by default following the rule. Suicide bombing or smoking is an action which we don't inherently take. We are eating already, so eating kosher or halal isn't a huge difference.

crystal2 11y ago

I saw this happening in real-life. A minority political party insists on dividing a state and a minority of people do support it. Majority parties didn't dare to go against it for the fear of loosing votes from those minority people. When a referendum was called for, no one spoke against the division though a large majority of people and political parties did feel it as crazy. Also they didn't believe it would really happen. But it happened and the state is divided against the feelings of the people. People are still a state of shock.