Disclosure: I am the Lead Judge of the George Walford International Essay Prize, offering £3,500 each year for the best essay about or against systematic ideology. For more information, see gwiep.net
The idea that the non-conformist cluster is also the atheist / libertarian / technophile / sf-fan / early-adopter / programmer / etc cluster is found in systematic ideology. In s.i. this group is called intellectual. Not because this group is more intelligent than non-intellectuals, but because this group has a preference for using the intellect to solve problems. The non-intellectual group may be just as intelligent but it has a preference to use emotion, tradition, force, or non-involvement to solve problems.
Systematic ideology suggests the non-intellectual group is larger than the intellectual group. The greater the reliance on intellectualism the smaller a cluster will be, and vice-versa. Non-intellectual groups may be contentious but the contention is not voiced or is considered secondary to the well-being of the group, while intellectual groups (as EY stated, using different terms) favor contention even when it tears the group apart. The non-intellectuals have the power of numbers and it seems they could overwhelm the intellectuals, but this doesn't happen: an intellectual minority endures. The intellectuals have the power of money / fame / tools and it seems they could overwhelm the non-intellectuals, but this doesn't happen: a non-intellectual majority endures. These ways of thinking (ideologies) form a system, and that's where systematic ideology gets its name. There are other patterns found in the system of ideologies. The more change a group demands or considers, the smaller their numbers will be. When demands for change are a majority interest (revolutions, for instance) the system is upset, but most of the time it re-asserts itself after the revolution with new versions of what was before. The large numbers favor freedom to own and restrictions on speech, the small numbers favor freedom to speak and restrictions on ownership. The smallest group suggests that all these ideologies form a system and that efforts to make any part of it be the whole of it are misguided.
Systematic ideology originated in a 1930s London cafe, in particular through the thinking of Harold Walsby (1911-1975). Walsby and others formed the Social Science Association to pursue these ideas. Walsby moved on to other interests and the study was continued in particular by George Walford (1919-1994). I decline to say I'm a believer or a disbeliever, but I'm definitely knowledgable of and a student of systematic ideology. The link I provide above has a great deal more of the theory for those who are interested.
Today's post, Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate was originally published on 20 March 2009. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Rationalist Fiction, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.