Just Your Standard Deviation

One of modernity’s most prominent cultural landmarks is its uniformly quixotic approach to societal tasks. If there is a simple solution, it unerringly gives way to the fanciful. This isn’t entirely a surprise, as frivolity is a trapping of wealth. And the West has been spending its inheritance since Emanuel Celler crawled out of the crypt. Though what pleasures we’ve purchased. Primarilly the frisson that accompanies vain moral posturing. But if we can have that and a mocha latte…well, our children can figure their own way out of the cannibal’s pot. Such are the choices a society makes when unburdened by necessity.

Here’s an example: how do educators best produce the next generation of high-achievement pupils? One way is to import legions of unassimilable “minority” dullards to supplement our already robust native cohort. Then subsequently pray for divine providence in converting them into only mildly disruptive wards of the state. Another is to perform the trivial molding required by intelligent students that share a common heritage. One of these approaches is simple and proven, the other is the obvious choice.

The realm of politics isn’t appreciably different. Just as teacher performance inexplicably improves with better students, so does that of politicians. As a man of that profession, you can either cobble together an egg-shell coalition of perpetually aggrieved and warring factions, or simply provide a generally like-minded constituency their preferred policies and spend the other 95% of your time riding yachts and call girls. Like teachers, the key to being a great politician is all in what you have to work with.

This seemed the obvious response to a spate of recent articles (that I didn’t save and so won’t link) on America’s growing unhapiness and across-the-spectrum dissatisfaction with core institutions. Most of these pieces focused on increasing political acrimony and disgorged a dense word-paste in pondering just why it is that “Americans” are becoming more irascible by the day. What could it possibly be?

Maybe the concept of standard deviation conceals the culprit.

Standard deviation is a number used to tell how measurements for a group are spread out from the average (mean), or expected value. A low standard deviation means that most of the numbers are very close to the average. A high standard deviation means that the numbers are spread out.

I will suggest, with no proof beyond intuition, that homogeneity is correlated in strong inverse proportion to standard deviation. That is to say the disparate members of a highly diverse society are spread far from the mean, while members of a homogenous society cluster much tighter to it. This has very obvious implications on happiness metrics.

Consider the following image.


Which plot between red or blue is the simpler for a politician to satisfy? If he chooses to enact “mean” dotted line policies, how many constituents will find themselves at great distance from it for each color plot? And if distance from preferred policies equates to political discontent, how is it possible to achieve even vague consensus with any position in the blue? It isn’t.

High SD diversity drives structural rancor in politics. It is invariable. No matter where a politician maneuvers on the x-axis he alienates huge swaths of the populace. Each segment having competing interests and vocal demands for their own to be accomodated foremost. Those not fully appeased will be furious. And math demands they will be in the vast majority. That is until the inevitable cleansing produces a more tranquil low SD environment.

It is only a politician plying the red plot who has the luxury of cavalierly plucking a point from 80-110 and hearing only mild grumbles in response–these being easily drowned out by a pair of inboard motors and the soft plish of bikini tops hitting the deck.

But this is all just political string theory. It may very well be that Somali Muslim clansmen in Minnesota have notions of government that are copacetic with their Scandinavian socialist neighbors. In that case it will just be a graph that ultimately runs red.

14 thoughts on “Just Your Standard Deviation

  1. This is my favorite alt-right blog on the web. It’s on a level that most leftists couldn’t comprehend even if they had not just a bachelors, but even a masters in Ethnic Studies.

    • That’s what was so bizarre about the Day of The 404, a couple weeks back. It would take a +5sd SJW to decipher what’s being said here. A being of such intelligence at G**gle would be wasted at the Complaints Desk. That leads me to believe G**gle is farther along in its AI developments than anyone ever suspected, and that’s who pulled the plug — Skynet’s shot across Mankind’s bow. I mean, yeah, the famous “gorillas” imagetag was smarter than the average leftist, but that was more of a Kids Say The Darnedest Things moment. Shit could get real, real soon.

  2. “the soft plish of bikini tops hitting the deck.”

    Not being on Jeffrey Epstein’s guest list, it is sadly a sound I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps one sunny day fortune will smile upon me and I will have the opportunity to experience the sweet symphony of plishes on Porter’s yacht. Until then, fair winds and following seas, Captain.

    • I’m going to go ahead and make application now for a maritime security position aboard said vessel. It would be my pleasure, for a meager pittance, to eagerly dispatch prospective marauders.

  3. Actually, a tight SD is closer to “mediocrity” than “homogeneity”. Blacks and women have smaller IQ SD than whites and men. Having a large SD means having more geniuses and more morons, and the former more than pay for the latter. In two populations with the same average and differing SDs, both of which are run by their top 1%, the one with the bigger SD will have the smarter leadership. While a large SD may mean more dissent, it need not, so long as the average and dumb are generally controlled by the smart fraction.

      • You’re saying diversity of individual goals has made it so any policy will be far from the desires of most of the population, and implying that a nation of people more similar to each other would have less variation in aims, therefore would be more satisfied by policies that are agreeable to the average person.

        The standard deviation trope just obscures the point with math jargon. For it to be formal, first you’d need to set up an n-dimensional space of orthogonal goals, a type of what I call a “mindspace”, and then you’d have to define a metric on that space so you could judge distances between an individual’s goals and the average. Then to use SDs, you’d have to verify that the n-dimensional scatter plot of individual goals is an n-D ellipsoid with a density cross section that matches a normal distribution. Which sounds like a lot of work, much more than writing an essay, so maybe your idea is better.

      • Yeah, it would be a lot of work, producing glazed eyes and ultimately, no positive result. What if you could mathematically prove that disparate races can’t just get along, and would all be better off living among their own kind? Would the libs and cucks stop trying to force the issue? Never.

  4. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/06) | The Reactivity Place

  5. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#79)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s