Creative Logic

Bryce Laliberte tweeted a link to this bizarre Atlantic article by Richard Florida, which has me trawling down for the ‘idiots’ tag. It can’t be assumed that writers choose their own headlines, but it’s entitled The Paradox of Diverse Communities, and proceeds to ‘argue’:

Their simulations of more than 20 million virtual “neighborhoods” demonstrate a troubling paradox: that community and diversity may be fundamentally incompatible goals. As the authors explain, integration “provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity, but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.” […] These findings are sobering. Because homophily and proximity are so ingrained in the way humans interact, the models demonstrated that it was impossible to simultaneously foster diversity and cohesion “in all reasonably likely worlds.” In fact, the trends are so strong that no effective social policy could combat them, according to [Zachary] Neal. As he put it in a statement, “In essence, when it comes to neighborhood desegregation and social cohesion, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

What does it say about the state of the contemporary liberal mind that truism and paradox are no longer distinguishable concepts?

November 19, 2013admin 18 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : ,

18 Responses to this entry

  • Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Says:

    “What does it say about the state of the contemporary liberal mind that truism and paradox are no longer distinguishable concepts?”

    That the people who have been saying that “liberalism is a form of insanity” seem to be disturbingly correct.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2013 at 5:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • mailadreapta Says:

    My response to the article was, “Well, duh.”

    The thing is, liberals know homophily perfectly well, which is why they spend most of their time in liberal enclaves, both physical and virtual. These enclaves are sometimes “diverse” along the fetishistic axes of race and sexual orientation, but they reveal their true character by their homogeneity of class and ideology.

    “Diversity for thee, but not for me.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 19th, 2013 at 5:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    What is it with reactionary simulations lately. Two isn’t a trend … or is it?

    First we have the Chicks did jerks analysis (HT: Heartiste), and now this. And I simulated the relationship between low-skill immigration on low-skill wages (duh, it’s negative) in Gedankenexperiment What else can we simulate?

    Of course, it’s ironic that none of these mathematical demonstrations will convince the same people who continue to shout ‘the Science is settled!’ using global climate simulations which have been proven faulty by Nature herself.

    Marketing Tagline: “Neoreaction: The Science is Settled!”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Neoreaction: The Paradox even Liberals believe in.”

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    If I might put out a speculation–a very speculative speculation, mind you–it appears that given ideal material conditions, thought will converge on similar problems and produce similar solutions. Rather than this being some extraordinary or bizarre phenomenon, it seems it may be a very regular occurrence. Neoreaction isn’t precisely original as an intellectual event. You give a group of people similar backgrounds in a well-developed philosophical tradition, provide them with a unique experience or access to previously inaccessible phenomena, and the outgrowth will tend in a similar direction. Neoreaction in being cognizant of itself as a philosophical tradition in the very formation of its body of doctrine (I find it hard to believe the Enlightenment philosophers were overly concerned with themselves as a philosophical tradition, since they didn’t talk about it) becomes an example of this. Philosophy and rhetoric are inseparable, and insofar as rhetoric follows a regular evolution, it only follows you will have overlapping concerns and solutions.

    People seem to have been vaguely aware that something was perverse in the arrangement of society, which has been distilled in art and texts. American Beauty is an expression of the emptiness that is the suburban “family” and its manufactured conceits, the current obsession over zombies (is it over? *knocks on wood*) is a particular desire for apocalypse and the resetting of civilization. What these people don’t have is a unified theory which can put the whole picture into focus. The disconnect between cause and effect in our technologized world has made the abstract Other, the starving African we never meet in person, near, and the concrete Other, the soul of our neighbor right before us, far. Those in the thrall of liberalism doublethink their way to the supposition that anyone who doesn’t agree with Progress is just a Bad Person, an inversion of the puritan attitude.

    But liberalism, even for the way in which it hacks the distribution of psychological traits innate to society, cannot prevent some people, at some times, coming into contact with a Truth which cannot be refuted or made reconcilable to the implicit system of prog values. Liberalism has spread itself thin; as extensive as its territory may be, there are too many borders to police and too few resources at its behest. Even a band of barbarians can sack Rome if they bide their time for the right opportunity.

    We don’t want to sack Rome, though. We want to take it over only to see that it won’t fall. Inasmuch as civilization is the Cathedral, and the Cathedral is civilization, this means our assault must be at the heart. With so much territory, it only follows there be many more apparent fronts which the Cathedral cannot maintain. Neoreaction is the manifestation of a systematic dissent from the system. It’s a theory which unites a number of otherwise disparate and singular rebellions; the traditionalists, the futurists, and the ethno-nationalists.

    ————–

    I want to run a simulation in order to demonstrate that fitness in humans will under all reasonable conditions involve a specialization of the sexes which includes, among other things, that women will have a taller distribution of intelligence and a higher aversion to risk. I don’t really know anything about programming yet, and I imagine simulations are very far away yet, but if anyone with the know how thinks there’s something to the idea… My email isn’t hard to find.

    I find simulations highly appealing because I’m familiar with economic forms of reasoning, which the majority clearly remain unacquainted with (and I know I’m not alone here in thinking that the solution isn’t “Try and educate better on economics”). Who are we trying to convince? Other would-be members of the Cathedral. Obscurity is a good way of deflecting involvement with those seeking fame but lacking the intellect to contribute, and it also protects against criticism from those progs (i.e. MSM) who would put together a hit piece in order to poison the well among the masses, since that would involve an actual background in a number of disciplines for which the average person, including the average reporter, has an acquaintance with none. Look at Kuznicki, who otherwise has a decent and thorough background in libertarian philosophy and his lackluster “critique” of our gracious host. He’s about as nearly sympathetic a character attached to the MSM that we’ll have, and even he couldn’t root out the modernist preconceptions which restrict his reasoning.

    Repeatedly in discussions with my compatriot we are struck by how vastly… dystopic modernist philosophy is. It makes you question your sanity, and I’ll be frank in admitting that it is a puzzle to determine my own motivations in all of this. The insight which generated my post from today (and which Land posted yesterday, an example of convergence as I mentioned above) really made me sit back. In one sense, it feels almost like I’ve reverted to an emo 15 year old teen trying to be edgy: “The problem with IP for medicine is that too many people live.” Like, that’s so fedorable I feel a little dirty defending that proposition. But that’s only the logic of Darwinism, ain’t it? If your society won’t enforce eugenic mechanisms, and another will, then your society will be rapidly replaced. Whites are almost Atlantean: they aspire to a future, a world, of peace and tolerance and good feelings, a world that appeals to our most basic Christian sentiment, but they exist before a time in which such a vision would actually be required to further civilization. Who couldn’t want such a world? I don’t want Malthusianism. If my ideal world actually existed, I wouldn’t; thanks to a relatively rare heart condition, I would be dead in my early 20’s at best without surgery. But here I am, advocating for a world which would see me dead to a world which would see me dead for such advocacy.

    Well, that went longer and further than I expected, I hope our host doesn’t mind.

    [Reply]

    Diogenes Reply:

    I enjoyed your latest greatly; it filled me with malthusiasm and brought out my latent anti-natalism. Libertarians might want to preserve their allegiance to modernism but I don’t.

    The argument to the effect that ‘you probably wouldn’t be *ALIVE* if it wasn’t for socialized medicine/the welfare state/x variety of paternalism’ offered by various breeds of liberal must be treated with contempt. Undifferentiated humanism comes at the price of heroism.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    Yes. Ultimately, someone’s being alive does not prove something is good. Society exists for the sake of no individual, only itself. The thought that “The system has kept me alive, which must mean it’s good” reeks of narcissism, a paradigmatically modernist sentiment. The pathology of altruism appears at best a deflection of anyone questioning the log in one’s eye, for we do not see feigned concern be transformed into informed action; the nearest seemingly good idea will do to make one feel good.

    Did you see/hear of that Batkid video? I reckon that video made people feel better about themselves more than it made them feel bad for the kid. I can hardly condemn such an emotion, for I understand such would be my own, were I to watch it, but these things seem to me altogether pornographic, an altruistic superstimulus which satiates the feeling to exhibit cohesion at the cost of actual communal development. And so social capital withers as people turn in on themselves, keeping other people from influencing their lives and losing on the integration with community which the body thrives on. Narcissism is a cannibalism of the soul.

    Tomorrow’s post will continue the theme, and it may (I reckon) illuminate a split between the soteriological futurists from the rest of neoreaction. Not that it couldn’t be reconciled, but it is a difference in the movement worth hashing out.

    admin Reply:

    “I hope our host doesn’t mind.” — Forgive my sarcasm, but I’m obviously outraged to see you adding hundreds of words of well-formulated argument to my blog.

    [Unfortunately, though, Zombies will almost certainly be shuffling back in at some point.]

    [Reply]

    Grotto Reply:

    > Zombies

    I rather enjoy the current zombie craze, it signifies a lurking suspicion in the public mind of a systemic collapse. All is not well in our Cathedral paradise.

    > Simulations

    I have a fairly extensive background in programming Monte Carlo simulations. The main problem with most simulations (especially in non-rigorous disciplines), is that the models are totally speculative, and therefore the results they produce are utterly worthless. The ideologically-motivated design of the simulation preordains the result. Just look at global-warming simulations, for example.

    Now as to male-female complementarianism, it shouldn’t be too hard to create a simulation that generates a male-female divergence. The key asymmetry is that a male can impregnate multiple females at little biological cost, while a female can only bear one child, at considerable biological cost, every two years or so. This means that men are rather expendable, as losing a few (or even half) of your males matters little to the size of the next generation, while every female counts. As a species, we take advantage of this by using men for genetic experimentation. Males are the risk-takers. This means men populate both ends of the achievement spectrum. More likely to find new continents, more likely to drown in a sea storm. More likely to be a genius, more likely to be insane.

    This simulation would be simple, taught in any genetic algorithm class. A population of genomes, a fitness function, a mating algorithm, and some random mutation mechanism.

    > Modernist Insanity, Neoreactionary Strategy

    Modernist and post-modernist philosophy became unmoored when they lost the sacred fear of God. With no God, the worst instrumentalist tendencies of modernism could run wild. We hold on to vestigial ideas of human dignity, but without the nourishment of a sacred belief in life, this too must wither and die.

    As we have discussed before, neoreaction is primarily a critique of the Cathedral. If we could succeed in wresting civilization away from the Cathedral, that would mean total success. I sincerely hope this is the outcome.

    We are in the gestation period, and the self-awareness of neoreaction as philosophical tradition, I feel, will serve us well. It may lead to a bit more navel-gazing that is strictly necessary, but if we are to attempt a top-down heart-transplant of civilization, I think this is the best way. Our first line of attack should be from the intellectual level. Barbarism is a last resort.

    > Batkid

    Agreed. It’s a public performance of narcissism masked as altruism…which of course, is the modus operandi of the left.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “I rather enjoy the current zombie craze, it signifies a lurking suspicion in the public mind of a systemic collapse.” — Yes, and every type of psychological (or even logistical) preparation for Zombie Apocalypse is effectively indistinguishable from Outer Right practical recommendations.

    Posted on November 19th, 2013 at 11:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotto Says:

    Richard Florida is an unintelligent Cathedral acolyte.

    The only thing he has done in the last ten years is flog his absurd theories about the “creative class”, who live in “creative cities”, and work in “creative industries.” Basically he notes that there are more bike lanes and yoga workshops in San Francisco, then extrapolates that to encourage high-tech job growth, you just need to get some of that pro-gay, pro-diversity mojo, and your city can be the next Cupertino.

    He’ll look at a 50% asian Palo Alto, and an 85% black Detroit, and honestly believe that the difference is better schools. In short, he’s completely worthless.

    SO…it makes it all the more impressive that this message of “community and diversity cannot co-exist” is breaking through. Even if he pretends not to get the message (as his career literally depends on it), his readers are not quite as obtuse. Look at the comments. They’re practically Sailerist.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Totally. I think it was Joel Kotkin (or was it Sailer?) who took him to the woodshed, with the obvious argument that his causality is completely bass-ackward. He makes a living by telling the ‘creative class’ how special they are, which reliably goes down well with people prepared to pay for coffee-table culture.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 20th, 2013 at 8:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “Their Simulations” are their interface to reality.

    Moldbug’s “Dire Problem” solution should be applied to THEM. Not that they aren’t doing most of the heavy lifting.

    The answer is the word simulations.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2013 at 6:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Attack. They have a world to defend, and it’s bankrupt and corrupt.

    You have hovels and weapons.

    Attack.

    [Reply]

    Thanatos Reply:

    My sentiments exactly. Firebomb everything they value,watch them weep, enjoy their suffering. Rinse wash,and repeat.

    Always position yourself so that the worst horrors have yet to be inflicted upon them, so that there is always the danger that you may “pull out all the stops” (best described and explained by their own imaginations), and employ scorched earth. That should put their rabbit-drives into the red zone and melt them down to a pile of blubbering goo with each new turn of the screw.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Agree. This is the mindset of Victory.

    It was always war against us, why spare the other way? Their time has come.

    [Reply]

    Posted on November 22nd, 2013 at 6:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2013/11/27 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] lefties by their fruits. Related: The destruction principle. Related: The liberal is incapable of distinguishing truism and paradox. Related: The small, but important, distinction that libearlism’s goal is not destroying all that […]

    Posted on November 27th, 2013 at 6:06 am Reply | Quote
  • The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish Says:

    […] Richard Florida (The Atlantic) can’t tell truism from paradox: […]

    Posted on January 21st, 2014 at 7:04 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment