9 ms·

Parable of the Polygons (2014)

76 points by Redoubts 3y ago

elefanten 3y ago
11 months early for the 10 year anniversary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 Edit: and coming up on 40 times on HN! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Parable%20of%20the%20polygons&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- Redoubts 3y ago
  I was reading an old reddit long-post, and saw this Vi Hart link. Figured it would be neat here, and was kinda shocked to see it reposted a lot and get 0 engagement in the last few years since the first time. I wonder what's different now...
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Feels like it goes well with Vi's How to Ruin Everything in 7 Steps (in case somehow you've never seen this): https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
If I understand the simulation correctly, this suggests that spaces that are dominated by a majority group probably are for the most part happy to increase their membership of minorities, and might be trying actively to do so. A bigger limiting factor may be the minorities themselves, who feel uncomfortable in a majority-dominated space, even one that welcomes them, and won't make the move unless they can bring enough others along at the same time. Pioneers willing to make that move first are very important. The writing sort of hints that it's the majority group who has to change something to attract minorities and reduce segregation ("demanding a bit of diversity in your spaces"), but per the rules of the simulation, that doesn't actually work. The only effective action that really works is for at least some members of the minority group to be comfortable seeking out places where they're surrounded by others who are unlike them. A triangle surrounded by other triangles cannot improve diversity by welcoming a square. They can only do so by themselves venturing out toward a square-dominated space.
p-e-w 3y ago
I first read that post several years ago and re-read it now, and I found that what bothered me back then is still bothering me today: The article goes to great lengths, with amazing visual presentation, to demonstrate how a diverse society can be achieved. It doesn't say a single word about why society should strive to be diverse. Instead, the article (ironically) appears to be written from the biased standpoint that it "ought to be" so. We hear claims like "harmful world", "shapist" (as a derogatory term for the natural human desire to be surrounded by like-minded individuals), "society cracks and splits", and a rather distasteful analogy between supposed biases and dirt. None of these assertions are ever justified by the authors. They are simply assumed to be correct, and presented to the reader as moral axioms. But of course, such claims are amenable to empirical analysis. One obvious approach is to compare rural and urban environments. Rural, isolated societies tend to be much less diverse than those found in modern "world cities". If the moral valuation implied by this article is correct, it should be possible to demonstrate that the society in a typical metropolis is, in some obvious way, "better" than that in a typical village. It certainly isn't obvious to me that this is indeed the case. I've lived in places where a dozen languages could be heard spoken on the street, and I've lived in villages that looked like they were frozen in time. I've been part of the majority, and I've been a one-in-a-thousand outsider, catching stares from random people who passed me by. I can't say I ever felt that diversity itself was the problem, or the solution for anything.
- jrmg 3y ago
  Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for historical reasons, have way ‘better’ lives than others. I don’t think this is at all arguable. I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing - in geographic as well as socioeconomic terms.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.
orbisvicis 3y ago
What's interesting is that an incredibly shapist society becomes incredibly diverse regardless of starting conditions. This is likely due to random moves and ease of moving. I wonder what level of information (knowledge of n-adjacent squares around a random target) is required to counteract this. Edit: This suggests a less controversial strategy than affirmative action.
- orbisvicis 3y ago
  Specifically: 1. Make it easier to move between states. 2. Restrict knowledge of diversity - which flies in the face of bean-counters and their conventional wisdom.
gostsamo 3y ago
Beware of incendiary grenades. Every time this post pops up on HN, I can't but think: there is nothing intellectually stimulating about the discussions it provokes. There are always the trolls who in one way or another are just propagating the american culture wars with all the troll vigor aimed at ruining the day of everybody else. In fact, the post is ideally position to do so, because it makes a controversial statement in an indirect way, does not examine it in dept, and leave everybody else to squabble in the comments. Every, single, time. The best policy here might be to just flag, hide, and never open the comments section.
- orbisvicis 3y ago
  The systems-level analysis is fascinating. Why doesn't someone rewrite it to use less controversial terminology? Or err... would that would be comparible to a fig-leaf campaign? Honestly what this needs is a more rigorous analysis. Such as a proof of maximum possible diversity given starting conditions and rules of movement. However you'd probably prefer an analysis from socialogical standpoint, some ammo to discourage the more licentious posts.
- Reubend 3y ago
  On the contrary, clearly there's some intellectually stimulating comments here. I just spent some time reading posts that argued with each other, deeply considering the points that each made. Can you expand on what you mean by the American culture wars?
dang 3y ago
Related: Parable of the Polygons (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714441 - April 2019 (27 comments) Parable of the Polygons – a playable post on the shape of society - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14332138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14332138 - May 2017 (2 comments) Parable of the Polygons – a playable post on the shape of society - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 - Dec 2014 (86 comments)
tgv 3y ago
Metaphors may be thought-provoking, but are --by definition-- not the same as the system they are used to discuss, and hence cannot be used to draw anything but weak conclusions. And the larger the distance between the metaphor and the subject under discussion, the weaker the conclusions must be.
- o11c 3y ago
  In particular, this is limited by: * reducing the number of neighbors to 8 on a rectangular grid, thus making many useful cluster behaviors impossible, and also rounding percentages but not showing any sign of the rounding * not counting "self" when counting the "how many are like self" percentage. As a result, if everybody desires not to be a minority in their local cluster, a 50-50 population mix will be simulated as all unhappy permanently instead of all happy.
curtisblaine 3y ago
What ruins the simulation for me is that polygons are "meh" when they have no immediate neighbors, while in real life secluded places are the most coveted.
andrewp123 3y ago
This post really doesn’t say a lot. One sentence describes it: if people are incentivized to move towards each other they will, and if they’re not as much then they won’t. This is a common practice I see among educators, make something overcomplicated so the audience feels they accomplished something at the end or learned something meaningful, even though it was extremely simple in the first place. You can always make more of something than there is.
- Redoubts 3y ago
  'Simple rules can lead to interesting behavior, and here's a case study you might find applicable to life' seems worthy of a gander to me.
krsrhe 3y ago
[dead]

76 points by Redoubts 3y ago

11 months early for the 10 year anniversary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 Edit: and coming up on 40 times on HN! https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=Parable%20of%20the%20polygons&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Redoubts 3y ago
I was reading an old reddit long-post, and saw this Vi Hart link. Figured it would be neat here, and was kinda shocked to see it reposted a lot and get 0 engagement in the last few years since the first time. I wonder what's different now...

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Feels like it goes well with Vi's How to Ruin Everything in 7 Steps (in case somehow you've never seen this): https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk https://youtu.be/deg1wmYjwtk

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

If I understand the simulation correctly, this suggests that spaces that are dominated by a majority group probably are for the most part happy to increase their membership of minorities, and might be trying actively to do so. A bigger limiting factor may be the minorities themselves, who feel uncomfortable in a majority-dominated space, even one that welcomes them, and won't make the move unless they can bring enough others along at the same time. Pioneers willing to make that move first are very important. The writing sort of hints that it's the majority group who has to change something to attract minorities and reduce segregation ("demanding a bit of diversity in your spaces"), but per the rules of the simulation, that doesn't actually work. The only effective action that really works is for at least some members of the minority group to be comfortable seeking out places where they're surrounded by others who are unlike them. A triangle surrounded by other triangles cannot improve diversity by welcoming a square. They can only do so by themselves venturing out toward a square-dominated space.

p-e-w 3y ago

I first read that post several years ago and re-read it now, and I found that what bothered me back then is still bothering me today: The article goes to great lengths, with amazing visual presentation, to demonstrate how a diverse society can be achieved. It doesn't say a single word about why society should strive to be diverse. Instead, the article (ironically) appears to be written from the biased standpoint that it "ought to be" so. We hear claims like "harmful world", "shapist" (as a derogatory term for the natural human desire to be surrounded by like-minded individuals), "society cracks and splits", and a rather distasteful analogy between supposed biases and dirt. None of these assertions are ever justified by the authors. They are simply assumed to be correct, and presented to the reader as moral axioms. But of course, such claims are amenable to empirical analysis. One obvious approach is to compare rural and urban environments. Rural, isolated societies tend to be much less diverse than those found in modern "world cities". If the moral valuation implied by this article is correct, it should be possible to demonstrate that the society in a typical metropolis is, in some obvious way, "better" than that in a typical village. It certainly isn't obvious to me that this is indeed the case. I've lived in places where a dozen languages could be heard spoken on the street, and I've lived in villages that looked like they were frozen in time. I've been part of the majority, and I've been a one-in-a-thousand outsider, catching stares from random people who passed me by. I can't say I ever felt that diversity itself was the problem, or the solution for anything.

jrmg 3y ago
Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for historical reasons, have way ‘better’ lives than others. I don’t think this is at all arguable. I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing - in geographic as well as socioeconomic terms.
- jojobas 3y ago
  There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.

orbisvicis 3y ago

What's interesting is that an incredibly shapist society becomes incredibly diverse regardless of starting conditions. This is likely due to random moves and ease of moving. I wonder what level of information (knowledge of n-adjacent squares around a random target) is required to counteract this. Edit: This suggests a less controversial strategy than affirmative action.

orbisvicis 3y ago
Specifically: 1. Make it easier to move between states. 2. Restrict knowledge of diversity - which flies in the face of bean-counters and their conventional wisdom.

gostsamo 3y ago

Beware of incendiary grenades. Every time this post pops up on HN, I can't but think: there is nothing intellectually stimulating about the discussions it provokes. There are always the trolls who in one way or another are just propagating the american culture wars with all the troll vigor aimed at ruining the day of everybody else. In fact, the post is ideally position to do so, because it makes a controversial statement in an indirect way, does not examine it in dept, and leave everybody else to squabble in the comments. Every, single, time. The best policy here might be to just flag, hide, and never open the comments section.

orbisvicis 3y ago
The systems-level analysis is fascinating. Why doesn't someone rewrite it to use less controversial terminology? Or err... would that would be comparible to a fig-leaf campaign? Honestly what this needs is a more rigorous analysis. Such as a proof of maximum possible diversity given starting conditions and rules of movement. However you'd probably prefer an analysis from socialogical standpoint, some ammo to discourage the more licentious posts.
Reubend 3y ago
On the contrary, clearly there's some intellectually stimulating comments here. I just spent some time reading posts that argued with each other, deeply considering the points that each made. Can you expand on what you mean by the American culture wars?

dang 3y ago

Related: Parable of the Polygons (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19714441 - April 2019 (27 comments) Parable of the Polygons – a playable post on the shape of society - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14332138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14332138 - May 2017 (2 comments) Parable of the Polygons – a playable post on the shape of society - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8716538 - Dec 2014 (86 comments)

tgv 3y ago

Metaphors may be thought-provoking, but are --by definition-- not the same as the system they are used to discuss, and hence cannot be used to draw anything but weak conclusions. And the larger the distance between the metaphor and the subject under discussion, the weaker the conclusions must be.

o11c 3y ago
In particular, this is limited by: * reducing the number of neighbors to 8 on a rectangular grid, thus making many useful cluster behaviors impossible, and also rounding percentages but not showing any sign of the rounding * not counting "self" when counting the "how many are like self" percentage. As a result, if everybody desires not to be a minority in their local cluster, a 50-50 population mix will be simulated as all unhappy permanently instead of all happy.

curtisblaine 3y ago

What ruins the simulation for me is that polygons are "meh" when they have no immediate neighbors, while in real life secluded places are the most coveted.

andrewp123 3y ago

This post really doesn’t say a lot. One sentence describes it: if people are incentivized to move towards each other they will, and if they’re not as much then they won’t. This is a common practice I see among educators, make something overcomplicated so the audience feels they accomplished something at the end or learned something meaningful, even though it was extremely simple in the first place. You can always make more of something than there is.

Redoubts 3y ago
'Simple rules can lead to interesting behavior, and here's a case study you might find applicable to life' seems worthy of a gander to me.

krsrhe 3y ago

[dead]