An interactive game showing why creating equality takes work and being unbiased isn’t enough

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

There are a lot of things I want to say about the simulation in its effort to establish the point of the text. The three most important ones, I believe, are conflicting messages, lack of options, and a shoehorned point. The visual results tend to go against what the text wants to purport. You result in islands of satisfied similar polygons and lukewarm acceptable levels on the fringes unless you intentionally demand all polygons have really unrealistic guidelines to follow, and that’s as much a failure shared by the centralized planning that seems to exist in these simulated worlds. When they’re not islands, they’re “waves” of same pieces whose bits daisy chaining into another wave. If there’s blank space, you tend to have blank space being surrounded on all sides by one kind of piece (making it there own, essentially). The ways in which the shapes create diversity is entirely based on their physical proximity. To the article’s credit, it comes around to make the point that having the pieces constantly being moved around wouldn’t work in the real world, if using them as standins for real people. Once they’re in place, however, the possibility of moving becomes unseen. Against its credit, the article seems to believe that other aspects of “being neighbors” exists, different methods of connectivity and interaction, aren’t factors. One triangle could live around a lot of triangles but interacts most frequently with squares, and it still would be happy. The polygons become more like atoms in a complex molecule rather than a series of individuals sharing the same space in that only certain configurations would work and everything else collapses. Finally, that ” In a world where bias ever existed, being unbiased isn’t enough! We’re gonna need active measures” point is where people who make these sort of arguments lose me, and I think themselves. Everything up to that point tends to be very articulate and somewhat demonstrable. Beyond that, the point become less about finding ways to increase happiness – which the article demonstrates has happened due to the previous elimination of bias that has been established – and more about ways of enforcing some unrealistic view of the world. In this case, it’s by introducing people who actually have some form of “acceptable” bias. Enforcing diversity without reason for the diversity makes the diversity meaningless, just a vehicle for looking good without caring about substance. If you value an unbiased society, why wouldn’t you tell the biased individuals that they’re wrong to think that way? This last point is more of a personal perspective nitpick than anything. Since the article doesn’t actually try to present resolutions to any of the problems it has laid out, the first point seems to suggest the realistic solution for the most happy polygons leans towards establishing islands and waves of conformity.


There’s no such thing as being “unbiased”. If you exist in this world, you have biases. Equality is another kind of bias, with it’s own perks and drawbacks.


This convinces me that homogeneity is better than anything else.


Equality requires a lot amount of work. And diversity exponentially increases the work required to the point of impossibility.


This actually convinced me that cultural segregation was better…. Which IMO is true. I want to live around people that share my worldview.