Divine Plagiarism

- How Marginalization Happens
Marginalization is a specific type of polarization. While polarization splits everyone into two camps, marginalization is where one of the camps is able to overpower the other to such an extent that the minority voices are silenced. Therefore, it is often rational for those in the majority, especially those toward the extremes, to pursue polarization, which leads to marginalization. This is accomplished by demonizing the other side, which is usually reciprocated. The fundamental aspect of polarization is that the middle goes away, and joins one or the other side, depending on what side of the breakpoint they are on. If neither side is dominant, then it goes from normal distribution to split bimodal distrib, and average doesn’t change. During marg, goes from skewed normal (1) to skewed bimodal w middle (2) to split maj/min (3) and average does change (teal to green on 3). Especially true is minority is disempowered (teal to dark blue on 3). Since the middle is totally lost, no one can stay there (maj says 'you’re one of those' but min doesn’t accept you.) No social networks to be Built. (Refer to gray networks (although not mathematical.) Therefore breakpoint, therefore one has to choose a side if they want to have any friends. The breakpoint is a weighted average of the two means. Interesting effect: some people will actually gravitate toward the marginalized viewpoint.

(1)




Black: Population distribution, Green: Average, Grey: Social Networks




(2)




Same, Blue: Maj Mean, Red: Min Mean





(3)



Same, Silver: Old Mean, Blue arrow: movement to maj, Red arrow: movement to min, Purple: Breakpoint, Teal: New Avg., Dk. Blue:

- Normal Strategizing
Normal strategizing picks up the 'low hanging fruit,' that is they work to win over those with viewpoints closest to their own. By winning them over, you gain more power in your coalition and gain the ability to overpower other coalition. One does this by 'reaching out' just beyond one's own boundaries. In doing so, one wins over the moderates. Therefore, this strategy is highly dependent on the middle (which is why almost all elections focus on the moderates). Under marginalization, this simply doesn’t work. There is no middle to reach out to; it’s like grasping for air. In graph (4) we can see how this strategy works normally (maroon), but fails under marg (red.) Even more so, the intermediate shifts, (small moderations) that happen when one changes their viewpoint cant happen, and total instantaneous conversion, the only remaining path, is much rarer. The social capital loss is prohibitive, transitional forms are not possible. In graph (5), we can see how the first person that could be reached has moved very far because of the marg. Additionally, there viewpoint under marg if they did come over, would be much further along the spectrum than if there were no marg.

(4)



Same; Crimson: trad. reaching out gains w/o marg.; Red: same w/ marg. (rapidly diminishing returns. Modeling curves, not lines, no motion. Next graph opposite.


(5)
Same; Dk. Bl: First person that can be brought over; Crim: where they would need to be brought to; Yellow: their position w/o marg; Green: where they would have to be brought to w/o marg.; Lt. Bl: Delta req'd w/o marg; Red: Delta req'd w/ marg.

- Strategizing under marginalization
It is always more effective to make use of extant forces rather than to fight against them. Looking to marginalization, one sees a significant latent force pushing to the center (people's viewpoints w/o marg). If one can unleash that force, they will have a much greater effect than by grasping for the middle (fighting these forces). When there is no movement, it is easy to maintain marg (quash any questioning, e.g. Shouting down those who question party line). If there is significant movement, then more energy is required, spirals out of control quickly [implications for artificial controls, e.g. In dictatorship, in prescribed viewpoints, etc.] Is more effective to subvert controls than to fight them when fighting under marginalization. Doing so can cause a cascade failure in the marginalization. (Different from open oppression, most of the marginalizers don’t see or don’t want to see the marginalization, so openly confronting the marg (as in a open revolution which would imply a much different original pop distrib) is not possible.) The movement will have several effects. The first-order effects will be a movement of the maj distrib toward the center (blk to gray), which will then move the mean viewpoint closer to the center (grn to teal), which is beneficial. This will then have a second-order effect on the breakpoint (as it is a weighted average of the groups, and the mean for the first group moved, which will move the breakpoint closer to the maj viewpoint (pnk to purple). This will then cause a shift of some people to the min viewpoint (grey), as their non-marg viewpoints are now on the min side of the breakpoint (will take some time, due to soc cap/ntwks). This will also moderate the min groups viewpoints. The system is now at a new equilibrium, but repeating the process is now easier, as both groups have moderated, and there is less soc cap loss to bridge the gap than there was originally. Realistically, due to the time lag, there will be several cycles occurring at once, with first order and second order effects intermixed. This indirect course of action will then result in more people coming to one's side than the direct approach. This is not to say to abandon the direct approach, for without the direct approach, the min side will be overrun, and there is no ind. app possible. (Chi+Cheng from Sun Tzu, ind off=off, dir off=def, def=def).
Then the question is how to do this. One needs to make moderate viewpoints in the maj acceptable. This is accomplished by engaging in dialogue with the other side. Logically this would fit, as dialogue would logically counteract marg. One needs to target the viewpoint "I don’t agree with them, but I’m not sure I totally agree w/ my side on everything." Through dialogue, and through conversation/engaging the other side productively (and proactively [the marginalizers will not want to start dialogue, but can be shamed into it]), these moderate viewpoints can then be made tenable, and the cascade failure can begin.


(6)



Same; first order effects. Grey=movement (+latent forces), Arrows show shift, darker new lighter old. Crimson bar=new gap, Red bar=old gap.

(7)



Same; second order effects.