Parable of the Polygons – a playable post on the shape of society

I enjoyed playing with the graphs and everything, but I question whether this model has much relevance to the real world. Is there a strong reason to believe that these effects would survive a model of "I want to move" that is not solely based on "too many people unlike me live near by" and/or "not enough people unlike me live near by"? Indeed, is there a strong reason to believe that a binary modality of "I'm happy/unhappy," (the post gestures in the direction of a third mode, "I'm neither happy nor unhappy," but in fact in their simulations that third mode is indistinguishable from "happy") is a good abstraction of people's moving decisions?

The data paper they posted a link to suggests that there is unlikely to be an equilibrium, contra the message of this post.

It seems like it's more an explanation of a mathematical model and a prescriptive political position, rather than a description of anything real in society.

There's no particular reason to desire an equilibrium, though. Actual desires should shift, which will naturally disrupt any equilibrium that appears, and this will probably happen faster than any equilibrium could be approached.

Yes, but a major point of the article is that a durable equilibrium is reached and then that equilibrium does not shift as attitudes shift. If it's not true that an equilibrium is reached, then one of their three major wrapping-up points is not true.

That's not a conclusion I draw from it.

Which one of their three wrapping-up points wouldn't be true? #1 simply asks you not to be offended. #2 states that it's always a work-in-progress. #3 is a call to action.

Perhaps you're misreading #2?

It's #2, and I'm not misreading it.

I mean, let's be clear: you can very reasonably hold the belief that one needs to actively work to overcome past bias. But in #2, they're calling out to their model, and specifically this part of this post:

"See what doesn't happen? No change. No mixing back together. In a world where bias ever existed, being unbiased isn't enough! We're gonna need active measures."

But that's only true because their model includes an easily-reached equilibrium (and also because it doesn't include non-diversity-based reasons to move). If it didn't, then past bias would not cause future segregation -- the (in that case never-stable) present state of the world would reflect current biases, not long-past one.

And this is what I'm saying: they have a very simple model. They have a few fairly laudable (though perhaps not actually very effective) personal and political prescriptions. But if the personal and political prescriptions do apply to the real world, they don't do so through the agency of that model.