<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>race &#8211; Empirical Zeal</title>
	<atom:link href="/tag/race/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/</link>
	<description>Taking delight in finding things out.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Nov 2022 18:12:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">23225967</site>	<item>
		<title>How Small Biases Lead to a Divided World: An Interactive Exploration of Racial Segregation</title>
		<link>/2014/12/08/parable-polygons/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[aatish]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2014 04:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interactive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3575</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People learn best by doing. That&#8217;s a simple idea, backed by reams of evidence. And yet I always struggle with this idea when I&#8217;m writing. Online science communication is by-and-large a passive medium, where the writer tells a story, and the reader listens. It might be an incredibly compelling and engaging story, but it&#8217;s ultimately &#8230; <a href="/2014/12/08/parable-polygons/" class="more-link">Continue reading <span class="screen-reader-text">How Small Biases Lead to a Divided World: An Interactive Exploration of Racial Segregation</span></a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<figure id="attachment_1673537" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1673537" style="width: 660px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/"><img decoding="async" class="size-660-single-full wp-image-1673537" src="http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trianglesquare2-660x184.png" alt="trianglesquare2" width="660" height="184" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-1673537" class="wp-caption-text"><img decoding="async" class="photo" src="https://www.wired.com/wp-content/themes/wired/assets/images/gallery-cam@2x.png" alt="" /> <a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/">Vi Hart and Nicky Case</a> / Public Domain</figcaption></figure>
<p>People learn best by doing. That&#8217;s a simple idea, backed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)">reams</a> of <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/05/empzeal-active-learning/">evidence</a>. And yet I always struggle with this idea when I&#8217;m writing. Online science communication is by-and-large a passive medium, where the writer tells a story, and the reader listens. It might be an incredibly compelling and engaging story, but it&#8217;s ultimately one where the writer is at the wheel and the reader is taken along for the ride. Sometimes this limitation frustrates me, because I recognize that it isn&#8217;t the most effective way to communicate ideas.</p>
<p>But today I came across something that made me see a different way of communicating online, one that whole-heartedly adopts this &#8216;learn by doing&#8217; philosophy and puts the reader in the driving seat. It&#8217;s called&nbsp;<a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/">Parable of the Polygons</a>,&nbsp;and was built by <a href="http://vihart.com/">Vi Hart</a> and <a href="http://ncase.me/">Nicky Case</a>. It&#8217;s what that they call a playable blog post, part story and part game, set in an imaginary world of squares and triangles. While it might at first seem like an odd mathematical game, it delivers&nbsp;a lucid&nbsp;and very relevant lesson on real-world segregation.</p>
<figure id="attachment_1673533" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1673533" style="width: 660px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-1673533 size-660-single-full" src="http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/trianglesquare1-660x283.png" alt="trianglesquare1" width="660" height="283" /></a><figcaption id="caption-attachment-1673533" class="wp-caption-text"><img decoding="async" class="photo" src="https://www.wired.com/wp-content/themes/wired/assets/images/gallery-cam@2x.png" alt="" /> <a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/">Vi Hart and Nicky Case</a> / Public Domain</figcaption></figure>
<p>The goal of the game is to move the squares and triangles around until they&#8217;re all happy. These shapes like living in a diverse world inhabited by squares and triangles alike &#8211; in fact they <em>prefer diversity</em>. But there&#8217;s a small problem. Each shape is slightly &#8216;shapist&#8217;. Here&#8217;s how Hart and Case put it,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;These little cuties are 50% Triangles, 50% Squares, and 100% slightly shapist. But only slightly! In fact, every polygon prefers being in a diverse crowd:</p>
<p>You can only move them if they&#8217;re unhappy with their immediate neighborhood. Once they&#8217;re OK where they are, you can&#8217;t move them until they&#8217;re unhappy with their neighbors again. They&#8217;ve got one, simple rule:</p>
<p><strong>“I wanna move if less than 1/3 of my neighbors are like me.”</strong></p>
<p>Harmless, right? Every polygon would be happy with a mixed neighborhood. Surely their small bias can&#8217;t affect the larger shape of society that much? Well&#8230;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>By playing around with these squares and triangles, you&#8217;ll discover how even slight biases towards similarly shaped neighbors can lead to total segregation. It&#8217;s a tour of the counter-intuitive&nbsp;<a href="http://web.mit.edu/rajsingh/www/lab/alife/schelling.html">math of segregation</a>, first spelt out by the Nobel Prize winning game theorist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling">Thomas Schelling</a>.</p>
<p>But it isn&#8217;t all gloom, for the post also teaches us that if all shapes demand even the smallest bit of diversity in their neighborhoods (a slight&nbsp;<em>anti-bias</em>, if you will), then segregation plummets. The lesson here is that small&nbsp;individual preferences can create a large societal effect. It&#8217;s up to us to determine which direction we want that effect&nbsp;to go &#8211; towards a diverse world or a completely segregated one.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/">Parable of the Polygons</a> is a truly interactive way of communicating an idea. And, perhaps just as important, it&#8217;s incredibly well designed. The disarmingly charming cast of characters &#8211; delightfully animated circles and squares &#8211; playfully distill the essence of the idea, and allow Hart and Case to deliver an effective lesson about race and equality without getting embroiled in a heated political debate.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s enough talk. Now go check out the <a href="http://ncase.me/polygons/">Parable of the Polygons</a>.</p>
<p>And&nbsp;once you&#8217;re done with exploring that, if&nbsp;you live in the US, you might also be interested in this <a href="http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html">racial map of the US</a> which shows you how diverse or segregated your neighborhood is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3575</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
