The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance
of the Stubborn Minority
26
is the interactions between such parts. And interactions can obey very simple
rules. The rule we discuss in this chapter is the minority rule.
Why you don’t have to smoke in the smoking section — Your food choices on
the fall of the Saudi king –How to prevent a friend from working too hard –
Omar Sharif ‘s conversion — How to make a market collapse
The best example I know that gives insights into the functioning of a
complex system is with the following situation. It suffices for an intransigent
minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely
small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire
population to have to submit to their preferences. Further, an optical illusion
comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under
the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority. If
it seems absurd, it is because our scientific intuitions aren’t calibrated for
that (fughedabout scientific and academic intuitions and snap judgments;
they don’t work and your standard intellectualization fails with complex
systems, though not your grandmothers’ wisdom).
The main idea behind complex systems is that the ensemble behaves in
way not predicted by the components. The interactions matter more than the
nature of the units. Studying individual ants will never (one can safely say
never for most such situations), never give us an idea on how the ant colony
operates. For that, one needs to understand an ant colony as an ant colony,
no less, no more, not a collection of ants. This is called an “emergent”
property of the whole, by which parts and whole differ because what matters
Figure 1 The lemonade container with the circled U indicating it is (literally)
Kosher.
The minority rule will show us how it all it takes is a small number of
intolerant virtuous people with skin in the game, in the form of courage, for
society to function properly.
This example of complexity hit me, ironically, as I was attending the New
England Complex Systems institute summer barbecue. As the hosts were
setting up the table and unpacking the drinks, a friend who was observant
and only ate Kosher dropped by to say hello. I offered him a glass of that type
of yellow sugared water with citric acid people sometimes call lemonade,
almost certain that he would reject it owing to dietary laws. He didn’t. He
drank the liquid called lemonade, and a Kosher person commented: “liquids
around here are Kosher”. We looked at the carton container. It carried a
SKIN IN THE GAME
symbol, a U inside a circle, indicating that it was Kosher. The symbol will be
detected by those who need to know and look for the fine print. As to others,
like myself, I had been speaking prose all these years without knowing,
drinking Kosher liquids without knowing they were Kosher liquids.
27
with peanut allergies as reduced exposure is one of the causes behind such
allergies).
Let us apply the rule to domains where it can get entertaining:
An honest person will never commit criminal acts but a criminal
will readily engage in legal acts.
Let us call such minority an intransigent group, and the majority a flexible
one. And the rule is an asymmetry in choices.
CRIMINALS WITH PEANUT ALLERGIES
A strange idea hit me. The Kosher population represents less than three
tenth of a percent of the residents of the United States. Yet, it appears that
almost all drinks are Kosher. Why? Simply because going full Kosher allows
the producer, grocer, restaurant, to not have to distinguish between Kosher
and nonkosher for liquids, with special markers, separate aisles, separate
inventories, different stocking sub-facilities. And the simple rule that
changes the total is as follows:
A Kosher (or halal) eater will never eat nonkosher (or nonhalal)
food , but a nonkosher eater isn’t banned from eating kosher.
Or, rephrased in another domain:
A disabled person will not use the regular bathroom but a
nondisabled person will use the bathroom for disabled people.
Granted, sometimes, in practice, we hesitate to use the bathroom with the
disabled sign on it owing to some confusion –mistaking the rule for the one
for parking cars, under the belief that the bathroom is reserved for exclusive
use by the handicapped.
Someone with a peanut allergy will not eat products that touch
peanuts but a person without such allergy can eat items without
peanut traces in them.
Which explains why it is so hard to find peanuts on airplanes and why
schools are peanut-free (which, in a way, increases the number of persons
I once pulled a prank on a friend. Years ago when Big Tobacco were hiding
and repressing the evidence of harm from secondary smoking, New York had
smoking and nonsmoking sections in restaurants (even airplanes had,
absurdly, a smoking section). I once went to lunch with a friend visiting from
Europe: the restaurant had tables available only in the smoking sections. I
convinced the friend that we needed to buy cigarettes as we had to smoke in
the smoking section. He complied.
Two more things. First, the geography of the terrain, that is, the spatial
structure, matters a bit; it makes a big difference whether the intransigents
are in their own district or are mixed with the rest of the population. If the
people following the minority rule lived in Ghettos, with their separate small
economy, then the minority rule would not apply. But, when a population
has an even spatial distribution, say the ratio of such a minority in a
neighborhood is the same as that in the village, that in the village is the same
as in the county, that in the county is the same as that in state, and that in
the sate is the same as nationwide, then the (flexible) majority will have to
submit to the minority rule. Second, the cost structure matters quite a bit. It
happens in our first example that making lemonade compliant with Kosher
laws doesn’t change the price by much, not enough to justify inventories.
But if the manufacturing of Kosher lemonade cost substantially more, then
the rule will be weakened in some nonlinear proportion to the difference in
costs. If it cost ten times as much to make Kosher food, then the minority
rule will not apply, except perhaps in some very rich neighborhoods.
Muslims have Kosher laws so to speak, but these are much narrower and
apply only to meat. For Muslim and Jews have near-identical slaughter rules
SKIN IN THE GAME
28
(all Kosher is halal for most Sunni Muslims, or was so in past centuries, but
the reverse is not true). Note that these slaughter rules are skin-in-the-game
driven, inherited from the ancient Eastern Mediterranean [discussed in
Chapter] Greek and Semitic practice to only worship the gods if one has skin
in the game, sacrifice meat to the divinity, and eat what’s left. The Gods do
not like cheap signaling.
Now consider this manifestation of the dictatorship of the minority. In the
United Kingdom, where the (practicing) Muslim population is only three to
four percent, a very high number of the meat we find is halal. Close to
seventy percent of lamb imports from New Zealand are halal. Close to ten
percent of the chain Subway carry halal-only stores (meaning no pork), in
spite of the high costs from the loss of business of nonpork stores. The same
holds in South Africa where, with the same proportion of Muslims, a
disproportionately higher number of chicken is Halal certified. But in the
U.K. and other Christian countries, halal is not neutral enough to reach a
high level, as people may use other people’s religious norms. For instance,
the 7th Century Christian Arab poet Al-Akhtal made a point to never eat halal
meat, in his famous defiant poem boasting his Christianity: “I do not eat
sacrificial flesh”
One can expect the same rejection of religious norms to take place in the
West as the Muslim populations in Europe grows.
Figure 2 Renormalization group: steps one through three (start from the
top): Four boxes containing four boxes, with one of the boxes pink at step
one, with successive applications of the minority rule.
So the minority rule may produce a larger share of halal food in the stores
than warranted by the proportion of halal eaters in the population, but with a
headwind somewhere because some people may have a taboo against
Moslem food. But with some non-religious Kashrut rules, so to speak, the
just to be safe. It is strange, once again, to see Big Ag who spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on research cum smear campaigns, with hundreds of
these scientists who think of themselves as more intelligent than the rest of
the population, miss such an elementary point about asymmetric choices.
Another example: do not think that the spread of automatic shifting cars is
necessarily due to the majority of drivers initially preferring automatic; it can
just be because those who can drive manual shifts can always drive
automatic, but the reciprocal is not true [I thank Amir-Reza Amini].
The method of analysis employed here is called renormalization group, a
powerful apparatus in mathematical physics that allows us to see how things
scale up (or down). Let us examine it next –without mathematics.
RENORMALIZATION GROUP
Figure 2 shows four boxes exhibiting what is called fractal self-similarity.
Each box contains four smaller boxes. Each one of the four boxes will contain
four boxes, and so all the way down, and all the way up until we reach a
certain level. There are two colors: yellow for the majority choice, and pink
for the minority one.
Assume the smaller unit contains four people, a family of four. One of
them is in the intransigent minority and eats only nonGMO food (which
includes organic). The color of the box is pink and the others yellow . We
“renormalize once” as we move up: the stubborn daughter manages to
impose her rule on the four and the unit is now all pink, i.e. will opt for
nonGMO. Now, step three, you have the family going to a barbecue party
attended by three other families. As they are known to only eat nonGMO, the
guests will cook only organic. The local grocery store realizing the
neighborhood is only nonGMO switches to nonGMO to simplify life, which
impacts the local wholesaler, and the stories continues and “renormalizes”.
By some coincidence, the day before the Boston barbecue, I was flaneuring
in New York, and I dropped by the office of a friend I wanted to prevent from
working, that is, engage in an activity that when abused, causes the loss of
mental clarity, in addition to bad posture and loss of definition in the facial
SKIN IN THE GAME
features. The French physicist Serge Galam happened to be visiting and
chose the friend’s office to kill time. Galam was first to apply these
renormalization techniques to social matters and political science; his name
was familiar as he is the author of the main book on the subject, which had
then been sitting for months in an unopened Amazon box in my basement.
He introduced me to his research and showed me a computer model of
elections by which it suffices that some minority exceeds a certain level for
its choices to prevail.
So the same illusion exists in political discussions, spread by the political
“scientists”: you think that because some extreme right or left wing party
has, say, the support of ten percent of the population that their candidate
would get ten percent of the votes. No: these baseline voters should be
classified as “inflexible” and will always vote for their faction. But some of
the flexible voters can also vote for that extreme faction, just as nonKosher
people can eat Kosher, and these people are the ones to watch out for as they
may swell the numbers of votes for the extreme party. Galam’s models
produced a bevy of counterintuitive effects in political science –and his
predictions turned out to be way closer to real outcomes than the naive
consensus.
THE VETO
The fact we saw from the renormalization group the “veto” effect as a person
in a group can steer choices. Rory Sutherland suggested that this explains
why some fast-food chains, such as McDonald thrive, not because they offer
a great product, but because they are not vetoed in a certain socio-economic
group –and by a small proportions of people in that group at that. To put it
in technical terms, it was a best worse-case divergence from expectations: a
lower variance and lower mean.
When there are few choices, McDonald’s appears to be a safe bet. It is also
a safe bet in shady places with few regulars where the food variance from
expectation can be consequential –I am writing these lines in Milan train
station and it as offensive as it can be to a visitor from far away, McDonald’s
is one of the few restaurants there. Shockingly, on sees Italians there seeking
refuge from a risky meal.
Pizza is the same story: it is commonly accepted food and outside a fancy
party nobody will be blamed for ordering it.
Rory wrote to me about the asymmetry beer-wine and the choices made for
parties: “Once you have ten percent or more women at a party, you cannot
serve only beer. But most men will drink wine. So you only need one set of
glasses if you serve only wine - the universal donor, to use the language of
blood groups.”
LINGUA FRANCA
If a meeting is taking place in Germany in the Teutonic-looking conference
room of a corporation that is sufficiently international or European, and one
of the persons in the room doesn’t speak German, the entire meeting will be
run in... English, the brand of inelegant English used in corporations across
the world. That way they can equally offend their Teuronic ancestors and the
English language. [Thank Arnie Schwarzvogel] It all started with the
asymmetric rule that those who are nonnative in English know (bad)
English, but the reverse (English speakers knowing other languages) is less
likely. French was supposed to be the language of diplomacy as civil servants
coming from aristocratic background used it –while their more vulgar
compatriots involved in commerce relied on English. In the rivalry between
the two languages, English won as commerce grew to dominate modern life;
the victory it has nothing to do with the prestige of France or the efforts of
their civil servants in promoting their more or less beautiful Latinized and
logically spelled language over the orthographically confusing one of transChannel meat-pie eaters.
We can thus get some intuition on how the emergence of lingua franca
languages can come from minority rules–and that is a point that is not
visible to linguists. Aramaic is a Semitic language which succeeded
Canaanite (that is, Phoenician-Hebrew) in the Levant and resembles Arabic;
it was the language Jesus Christ spoke. The reason it came to dominate the
SKIN IN THE GAME
Levant and Egypt isn’t because of any particular imperial Semitic power. It
was the Persians –who speak an Indo-European language –who spread
Aramaic, the language of Syria. Persians taught Egyptians a language that
was not their own. Simply, when the Persians invaded Babylon they found an
administration with scribes who could only use Aramaic and didn’t know
Persian, so Aramaic became the state language. If your secretary can only
take dictation in Aramaic, Aramaic is what you will use. This led to the
oddity of Aramaic being used in Mongolia, as records were maintained in the
Syriac alphabet (Syriac is the Eastern dialect of Aramaic). And centuries
later, the story would repeat itself in reverse, with the Arabs using Greek in
their early administration in the seventh and eighth’s centuries. For during
the Hellenistic era, Greek replaced Aramaic as the lingua franca in the
Levant, and the scribes of Damascus maintained their records in Greek. But
it was not the Greeks who spread Greek around the Mediterranean –
Alexander (himself not Greek but Macedonian and spoke Greek as second
language) did not lead to an immediate deep cultural Hellenization. It was
the Romans who accelerated the spreading of Greek, as they used it in their
administration across the Eastern empire.
A French Canadian friend from Montreal, Jean-Louis Rheault, commented
as follows, bemoaning the loss of language of French Canadians outside
narrowly provincial areas. He said: “In Canada, when we say bilingual, it is
English speaking and when we say “French speaking” it becomes bilingual.”
THE ONE-WAY STREET OF RELIGIONS
In the same manner, the spread of Islam in the Near East where Christianity
was heavily entrenched (it was born there) can be attributed to two simple
asymmetries. The original Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in
converting Christians as these provided them with tax revenues –the
proselytism of Islam did not address those called “people of the book”, i.e.
individuals of Abrahamic faith. In fact, my ancestors who survived thirteen
centuries under Muslim rule saw advantages in not being Muslim: mostly in
the avoidance of military conscription.
The two asymmetric rules were are as follows. First, if a non Muslim man
under the rule of Islam marries a Muslim woman, he or she needs to convert
to Islam –and if either parents of a child happens to be Muslim, the child will
be Muslim10. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the
heaviest crime under the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty. The
famous Egyptian actor Omar Sharif, born Mikhael Demetri Shalhoub, was of
Lebanese Christian origins. He converted to Islam to marry a famous
Egyptian actress and had to change his name to an Arabic one. He later
divorced, but did not revert to the faith of his ancestors.
Under these two asymmetric rules, one can do simple simulations and see
how a small Islamic group occupying Christian (Coptic) Egypt can lead, over
the centuries, to the Copts becoming a tiny minority. All one needs is a small
rate of interfaith marriages. Likewise, one can see how Judaism doesn’t
spread and tends to stay in the minority, as the religion has opposite rules:
the mother is required to be Jewish, causing interfaith marriages to leave the
community. An even stronger asymmetry than that of Judaism explains the
depletion in the Near East of three Gnostic faiths: the Druze, the Ezidi, and
the Mandeans (Gnostic religions are those with mysteries and knowledge
that is typically accessible to only a minority of elders, with the rest of the
members in the dark about the details of the faith). Unlike Islam that
requires either parents to be Muslim, and Judaism that asks for at least the
mother to have the faith, these three religions require both parents to be of
the faith, otherwise the person leaves the community.
Egypt has a flat terrain. The distribution of the population present
homogeneous mixtures there, which permits renormalization (i.e. allows the
asymmetric rule to prevail) –we saw earlier in the chapter that for Kosher
rules to work, one needed Jews to be somewhat spread out across the
country. But in places such as Lebanon, Galilee, and Northern Syria, with
mountainous terrain, Christians and other Non Sunni Muslims remained
10 Note some minor variations across regions and Islamic sects. The original rule
is that if a Muslim woman marries a Non Muslim man, he needs to convert. In
practice, in many countries, both need to do so.
SKIN IN THE GAME
concentrated. Christians not being exposed to Muslims, experienced no
intermarriage.
All Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which won thanks to its
stubbornness. For, before Islam, the original spread of Christianity in the
Roman empire can be largely seen due to... the blinding intolerance of
Christians, their unconditional, aggressive and proselyting recalcitrance.
Roman pagans were initially tolerant of Christians, as the tradition was to
share gods with other members of the empire. But they wondered why these
Nazarenes didn’t want to give and take gods and offer that Jesus fellow to the
Roman pantheon in exchange for some other gods. What, our gods aren’t
good enough for them? But Christians were intolerant of Roman paganism.
The “persecutions” of the Christians had vastly more to do with the
intolerance of the Christians for the pantheon and local gods, than the
reverse. What we read is history written by the Christian side, not the GrecoRoman one.
We know too little about the Roman side during the rise of Christianity, as
hagiographies have dominated the discourse: we have for instance the
narrative of the martyr Saint Catherine, who kept converting her jailors until
she was beheaded, except that... she may have never existed. There are
endless histories of Christian martyrs and saints –but very little about the
other side, Pagan heroes. All we have is the bit we know about the reversion
to Christianity during the emperor Julian’s apostasy and the writings of his
entourage of Syrian-Greek pagans such as Libanius Antiochus. Julian had
tried to go back to Ancient Paganism in vain: it was like trying to keep a
balloon under water. And it was not because the majority was pagan: it was
because the Christian side was too unyielding. Christianity had great minds
such as Gregorius of Nazianzen and Basil of Caesaria, but nothing to match
the great orator Libanius, not even close.
In fact we can observe in the history of Mediterranean “religions” or,
rather, rituals and systems of behavior and belief, a drift dictated by the
intolerant, actually bringing the system closer to what we can call a religion.
Judaism might have almost lost because of the mother-rule and the
confinement to a tribal base, but Christianity ruled, and for the very same
reasons, Islam did. Islam? there have been many Islams, the final accretion
quite different from the earlier ones. For Islam itself is ending up being taken
over (in the Sunni branch) by the purists because these were more intolerant
than the rest: the Wahhabis, founders of Saudi Arabia, were the ones who
destroyed the shrines, and to impose the maximally intolerant rule, in a
manner that was later imitated by “ISIS” (the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria/the Levant). Every single accretion of Sunni Islam seems to be there to
accommodate the most intolerant of its branches.
[The worrisome aspect of the distribution of devout Sunni Islam around the
globe]
IMPOSING VIRTUE ON OTHERS
This idea can help us debunk a few more misconceptions. How do books get
banned? Certainly not because they offend the average person –most
persons are passive and don’t really care, or don’t care enough to request the
banning. It looks like, from past episodes, that all it takes is a few
(motivated) activists for the banning of some books, or the black-listing of
some people. The great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell lost his
job at the City University of New York owing to a letter by an angry –and
stubborn –mother who did not wish to have her daughter in the same room
as the fellow with dissolute lifestyle and unruly ideas.
The same seems to apply to prohibitions –at least the prohibition of alcohol
in the United States which led to interesting Mafia stories. [Expand]
We mentioned earlier the rule that a criminal can be law-abiding but not
the reverse. This asymmetry by itself can show how societies can evolve to be
law abiding, or have laws that promote certain forms of justice.
Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t
come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant
person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance.
The same can apply to civil rights.
would be still stuck in the Middle Ages and Einstein would have ended as he
started, a patent clerk with fruitless side hobbies.
***
Alexander said that it was preferable to have an army of sheep led by a lion
to an army of lions led by a sheep. Alexander (or no doubt he who produced
this probably apocryphal saying) understood the value of the active,
intolerant, and courageous minority. Hannibal terrorized Rome for a decade
and a half with a tiny army of mercenaries, winning twenty-two battles
against the Romans, battles in which he was outnumbered each time. He
was inspired by a version of this maxim. At the battle of Cannae, he
remarked to Gisco who complained that the Carthaginians were
outnumbered by the Romans: “There is one thing that’s more wonderful
than their numbers … in all that vast number there is not one man called
Gisgo.”11
This large payoff from stubborn courage is not just in the military. The
entire growth of society, whether economic or moral, comes from a small
number of people. So we close this chapter with a remark about the role of
skin in the game in the condition of society. Society doesn’t evolve by
consensus, voting, majority, committees, verbose meeting, academic
conferences, and polling; only a few people suffice to disproportionately
move the needle. All one needs is an asymmetric rule somewhere. And
asymmetry is present in about everything.