How the tolerant left treats others who disagree

[OriZ 3,165]

 

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

We cannot argue about the shape of the curve unless you can agree on the measurements and scales used on the Y axis. Hell we cannot even agree on what we are measuring. The laws of physics do not apply in sociology. 

 

 

 

Really, this should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The bell curve is the most common type of distribution for a variable, and due to this fact, it is known as a normal distribution. The highest point on the curve, or the top of the bell, represents the most probable event in a series of data, while all other possible occurrences are equally distributed around the most probable event, creating a downward-sloping line on each side of the peak. In this case we can do the same with people. 

 

 

So in this bell curve you see most people(center, center-right, center-left), then you have some people. The far edges would be extreme people. The left side of "some people" would consider the end of the other side's "some people" to be more extreme than their own. Same is true for the right side "some people". But in the end the distribution is relative and both sides are at an equal distance from the middle of "most people". So if the middle line is 0, and the ends are 3 and -3, they're both still 3 away from 0. It's just how each side perceives the other that's different.

Edited March 22, 2017 by OriZ

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

 

Really, this should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The bell curve is the most common type of distribution for a variable, and due to this fact, it is known as a normal distribution. The highest point on the curve, or the top of the bell, represents the most probable event in a series of data, while all other possible occurrences are equally distributed around the most probable event, creating a downward-sloping line on each side of the peak. In this case we can do the same with people. 

 

 

So in this bell curve you see most people(center, center-right, center-left), then you have some people. The far edges would be extreme people. The left side of "some people" would consider the end of the other side's "some people" to be more extreme than their own. Same is true for the right side "some people". But in the end the distribution is relative and both sides are at an equal distance from the middle of "most people". It's just how each side perceives the other that's different. 
 

Please..

 

There are any number of probability distribution models...and you have presented no data for us to consider which one fits.  

Before we start any discussion , you need to decide what you are measuring:  Violence against A$$$wholes?, irrationality in  view points?  Hatred of the status quo? 

Peoples viewpoints are not random like coin tosses.  

 

 

 

 

[Dakine10 5,452]

12 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

 

Really, this should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The bell curve is the most common type of distribution for a variable, and due to this fact, it is known as a normal distribution. The highest point on the curve, or the top of the bell, represents the most probable event in a series of data, while all other possible occurrences are equally distributed around the most probable event, creating a downward-sloping line on each side of the peak. In this case we can do the same with people. 

 

 

So in this bell curve you see most people(center, center-right, center-left), then you have some people. The far edges would be extreme people. The left side of "some people" would consider the end of the other side's "some people" to be more extreme than their own. Same is true for the right side "some people". But in the end the distribution is relative and both sides are at an equal distance from the middle of "most people". So if the middle line is 0, and the ends are 3 and -3, they're both still 3 away from 0. It's just how each side perceives the other that's different.

 

   Not everything follows a Gaussian distribution. I've haven't seen any convincing evidence that the political spectrum does. It looks bimodal to me, and there's nothing random about how we end up in those categories. The probabilities that apply in this case are not the same as those which we ascribe to the normal distribution. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

 

   Not everything follows a Gaussian distribution. I've haven't seen any convincing evidence that the political spectrum does. It looks bimodal to me, and there's nothing random about how we end up in those categories. The probabilities that apply in this case are not the same as those which we ascribe to the normal distribution. 

Americans  are more Bi-modal in their views, I wish I new the reason, causes and if this will persist

Edited March 22, 2017 by ccneat

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

It's real easy.

 

 

The MDL.--  Myself and maybe a handful more.   ---     The MDR.  

 

There is your breakdown .  See that wasn't hard , was it 

[Dakine10 5,452]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

It's real easy.

 

 

The MDL.--  Myself and maybe a handful more.   ---     The MDR.  

 

There is your breakdown .  See that wasn't hard , was it 

 

     So you're saying it's an inverse bell curve, and the extremists are distributed more to the center?

[Dashinka 25,887]

1 hour ago, Dakine10 said:

 

     So you're saying it's an inverse bell curve, and the extremists are distributed more to the center?

You may be right as those in the middle politically today tend to be outliers, so the middle may be populated by the extremists.

[OriZ 3,165]

6 hours ago, ccneat said:

Please..

 

There are any number of probability distribution models...and you have presented no data for us to consider which one fits.  

Before we start any discussion , you need to decide what you are measuring:  Violence against A$$$wholes?, irrationality in  view points?  Hatred of the status quo? 

Peoples viewpoints are not random like coin tosses.  

 

 

 

 

I thought it was clear what we were measuring. The distribution of where people stand politically from left to right and everything inbetween. It has to be an even distribution. In binomial distribution you only have two outcomes, here you have many more. So, what you are saying would make sense if say, you had a poll that asked people a question with two answers. Then you might get an uneven distribution. But the more questions you add, the more it'll strive to be symmetric because there are so many different viewpoints along the political spectrum. It's kind of like the fibonacci sequence in a way, even though one is physics and the other is math. The further ahead in the sequence you are and divide the two numbers, the closer it'll strive to reach the golden ratio(the golden ratio is considered to be 1.618 but usable ratios in nature would also be 0.382, 0.5, 0.618, 1, 1.382, 1.5, 1618). So, not to dig too deep into math here, but if the sequence is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc...1/1 = 1 but 2/1 = 2 and 3/5 = 0.6. 55/34 would be 1.6176, but 89/55 would be 1.6181. Anyway, too much math for morning time.

[Boiler 47,499]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

You may be right as those in the middle politically today tend to be outliers, so the middle may be populated by the extremists.

Quite possibly, we seem a minority.

[smilesammich 10,727]

22 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I thought it was clear what we were measuring. The distribution of where people stand politically from left to right and everything inbetween. It has to be an even distribution. In binomial distribution you only have two outcomes, here you have many more. So, what you are saying would make sense if say, you had a poll that asked people a question with two answers. Then you might get an uneven distribution. But the more questions you add, the more it'll strive to be symmetric because there are so many different viewpoints along the political spectrum. It's kind of like the fibonacci sequence in a way, even though one is physics and the other is math. The further ahead in the sequence you are and divide the two numbers, the closer it'll strive to reach the golden ratio(the golden ratio is considered to be 1.618 but usable ratios in nature would also be 0.382, 0.5, 0.618, 1, 1.382, 1.5, 1618). So, not to dig too deep into math here, but if the sequence is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc...1/1 = 1 but 2/1 = 2 and 3/5 = 0.6. 55/34 would be 1.6176, but 89/55 would be 1.6181. Anyway, too much math for morning time.

are you saying the answers to the questions will strive to be symmetric while actually being all over the spectrum? the things ya'll choose to dig in your heels over..lol. pure nonsense.

[Teddy B 17,252]

12 hours ago, Boiler said:

Maybe, need something very accurate?

I always use the Al Gore hockey stick graph, works for everything.

 

[Dashinka 25,887]

48 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

are you saying the answers to the questions will strive to be symmetric while actually being all over the spectrum? the things ya'll choose to dig in your heels over..lol. pure nonsense.

I think what it demonstrates is that there are extremists on both sides that say and do things that are stupid and the distribution is equal across the political spectrum.

[bcking 3,157]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

I disagree. Looking at it from a purely technical perspective, it would have to be equal. Now, that's not the same as saying that both sides are equally as extreme(although I personally believe they are, there's nothing stopping one from making an argument that the extremists on one side are worse than the others). However, there has to be an equal distribution, even if it's on a relative basis.

Why does it have to be equal? If you take the mean or the median on the graph I provided, there is a much larger tail on the "right" side of that mean/median vs. the left. Therefore the end of the graph on the right is much further away from the middle than on the left. As for "equal distribution", what exactly means that is impossible that there is more on one side than the other? If "Moderate" would be considered the Mean/Median +/- 1 in the graph provided, I could easily create a graph where everything left of the mean/median is within 1, while half of the population to the right is beyond 1.

 

Again not saying any of this is true of our politics, but there is nothing "purely technical" that means it has to be true. Unless your definition of "the middle" in politics is exactly in between 50% of the population on other side, which it just isn't.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

I thought it was clear what we were measuring. The distribution of where people stand politically from left to right and everything inbetween. It has to be an even distribution. In binomial distribution you only have two outcomes, here you have many more. So, what you are saying would make sense if say, you had a poll that asked people a question with two answers. Then you might get an uneven distribution. But the more questions you add, the more it'll strive to be symmetric because there are so many different viewpoints along the political spectrum. It's kind of like the fibonacci sequence in a way, even though one is physics and the other is math. The further ahead in the sequence you are and divide the two numbers, the closer it'll strive to reach the golden ratio(the golden ratio is considered to be 1.618 but usable ratios in nature would also be 0.382, 0.5, 0.618, 1, 1.382, 1.5, 1618). So, not to dig too deep into math here, but if the sequence is 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, etc...1/1 = 1 but 2/1 = 2 and 3/5 = 0.6. 55/34 would be 1.6176, but 89/55 would be 1.6181. Anyway, too much math for morning time.

Sorry you can't apply math sequences to human behavior. There is no mathmetical law stating that with a lot of political opinions on the spectrum, the distribution has to be symmetric. We also aren't considering it to its limit, where you have an infinite number of questions/opinions to choose from (and even then I would argue it wouldn't necessarily end up as a symmetric bell curve). 

 

We have a population where each person is free to choose to fall on a spectrum whereever they want. The "middle" of the spectrum is not the median of the set. We don't define being "moderate" or "middle of the road" by having an opinion that is exactly in between 50% of the population on either side. Our "middle of the road" is more of a mean, and in that scenario one side can have many more outliers than the other and still end up with the same mean.

[bcking 3,157]

8 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

 

Really, this should not be a difficult concept to grasp. The bell curve is the most common type of distribution for a variable, and due to this fact, it is known as a normal distribution. The highest point on the curve, or the top of the bell, represents the most probable event in a series of data, while all other possible occurrences are equally distributed around the most probable event, creating a downward-sloping line on each side of the peak. In this case we can do the same with people. 

 

 

So in this bell curve you see most people(center, center-right, center-left), then you have some people. The far edges would be extreme people. The left side of "some people" would consider the end of the other side's "some people" to be more extreme than their own. Same is true for the right side "some people". But in the end the distribution is relative and both sides are at an equal distance from the middle of "most people". So if the middle line is 0, and the ends are 3 and -3, they're both still 3 away from 0. It's just how each side perceives the other that's different.

You are wrong because your assumption that you begin with is wrong.

 

You cannot assume that the political spectrum fits a normal distribution. There is no law that states that the political spectrum doesn't have a positively/negatively skewed distribution  (Or right/left skewed), like in the graph I provided.

 

You need to show proof that we fit a normal distribution. We try to fit a lot of things to a normal distribution in science, and we like to "assume" that things do but that is not often the case. We model things using it, but again we make a lot of assumptions. You are assuming.