We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in way not predicted by the components. The interactions matter more than the nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony, no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent” property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple rules. The rule we discuss in this chapter is the minority rule.
Not everyone will fully understand or appreciate what Taleb has to say. In my opinion, I say: good stuff, very deep thinking, and well worth reading. Great insights. If possible, get the whole INCERTO set. I highly recommend all his books.
So the Maggie's commenters who insist that Trump was the greatest president ever and have nothing but insult for anyone who has a word against him are actually employing a veto strategy that might work? Not a heartening thought for any idea of discussion.
Just a reminder that the majority of voters for all presidential candidates in my lifetime have done so reluctantly. I may know about a hundred Trump voters personally, and not one was what I would call sold out for him.
Assistant Village Idiot
Emergent Order isn't anything new.
Austrian Economics is essentially built upon the framework - though at the time it wasn't understood quite as 'emergent order', that came later.
My first run-ins with the term came shortly after "Jurassic Park" stoked my curiosity regarding Chaos and Complexity Theory.
I went to several conferences run by the Santa Fe Institute on these concepts. Found useful applications in my business...but they were largely ignored as unusual. Mainly because people don't understand the ideas presented by network effects.
People think of either individuals or groups, not varying kinds of both - the networks of individuals within groups, which increase and decrease, speed up or slow down, etc.
Market economies are based on emergent order. Hayek's entire concept of pricing in markets is based on emergent order - that the decentralized mechanisms of competition AND cooperation are more powerful than centralized command and control or simple cooperation.
Cooperation is useless if it isn't productive and proactive. It's just cooperation for the sake of getting along. Which is OK, but not beneficial. Some form of competition is needed to bring out the best aspects of cooperation. That competition can be internally applied or externally applied.
Taleb has found ways to bring some of these concepts to a wider audience, but they still haven't found a place in society in a meaningful fashion. After all, I'm shocked at how far the Santa Fe Institute went with chaos and complexity - but has more or less abandoned it when it comes to Economics and Policy.
Emergent Order is why I have invested heavily in cryptocurrency, years ago (and more last year when covid hit). It's just emerging....
One can expect the same rejection of religious norms to take place in the West as the Muslim populations in Europe grows. Boy, that was a long complicated article. But it was well written. I especially enjoyed the author's discussion of intransigent minorities, and their efforts at changing group norms. In America we have several groups of intransigent minorities; most notably lesbians and homosexuals who demand legal recognition of their civil unions. Jews who demand that Christianity not be treated as the dominant religion, and Blacks and Hispanics who demand that Western Culture not be taught in school.
So the question is this: By what right does a minority assert a claim against the majority? After all, a Democracy is supposed to mean majority rule. If courts can just randomly overturn the results of referendums, then it's not a Democracy. The American people have expressed their wishes quite clearly: They don't want Muslims, or Blacks, or Hispanics, or Jewish Communists in America. These intransigent groups never stop agitating for changes which will benefit them directly. In fact, the whole idea of "Civil Rights" is based on the notion that majority rule shouldn't apply. But it should. There are no rights which exist outside the approval of public opinion. Look: In my entire life, I have never met one person who expressed a desire for a Black or Muslim neighbor. Not one.
So when it comes to tolerance, there is no reason to tolerate groups who clearly mean harm. There's nothing nice about Black or Muslim America. Or Hispanic America, either. We are calmly watching these groups prepare for a giant final assault, where they believe they will finally gain absolute power. And then they'll really let white people have it. Nassim, the author of this article, wrote that "Moral Values" are the real friction point between cultures. Americans value honesty, fair play, and hard work. The invading groups value subterfuge, disinformation, and double-dealing. There's no need for Americans to tolerate that kind of behavior. All of the intransigent minority groups should be returned to their home countries; where they can lie, cheat, and steal as much as they want. America is a white, Christian, capitalist country.
It's not going to become a stinky communist rat-hole like Mexico, and Egypt, and Nigeria.
Maybe you should read Lynn Corum, America Thinker March 7,
"Putins former chief of staff calls Trump a champion against
new world order" The article is on America Thinker.
Hopefully "putin" will not trigger you.
Why on earth do you think I would be triggered by "putin," or anything, and what on earth does that have to do with the topic of a minority enforcing it's will on a majority?
Sounds like you are the one who got triggered. Sort of giving evidence for my point, perhaps.
Assistant Village Idiot
That's interesting. If you had to rank the Presidents going back to, say, Richard Nixon - which is probably about the start of your adult life as a thinking person - how would you rank them, Best to Worst? Purely subjective, on the basis of whatever you think is most important.
Me, without devoting any huge amount of thought to it:
9. Biden (extrapolating from so far)