How the tolerant left treats others who disagree

[smilesammich 10,727]

36 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

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.

that's reading quite a bit into a chart that does not reference 'political', 'stupid', 'extremists" "say "do" or "things".

[Dashinka 25,887]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

that's reading quite a bit into a chart that does not reference 'political', 'stupid', 'extremists" "say "do" or "things".

It was in reference to the distribution of extremists on either side.  If you wish to believe that they exist only on one side that is your prerogative.  It goes back to the OP showing how Trump supporters were treated by the in tolerant Left.  Responses stated that there is no such thing as the Alt Left, and my assertion is it doesn't matter what they are called, they are there.  Like I said earlier, the real question is how the moderates on each side acknowledge those extremists. 

[OriZ 3,165]

5 hours 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 

It is an interesting phenomenon. you have the right usually willing to admit it's got some rotten apples, and all it asks of the left is to admit that they do on their end too, not even that there's more on their end or anything. Then you have some on the left acting like they can do no wrong, and the only problems are ever caused by the right. The self righteousness and denial is mind blowing. Talk about alternate reality. This thread proves that better than anything - any weapon to salvage the narrative.

 

1 hour 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.

What I am saying is - Fibonacci as well as other math can be and is applied daily in nature, and it can be applied to human nature as well, and so can physics. There are other forces that regulate us. Ever heard of socionomics? I deal with this on a daily basis, I see how fibonacci numbers even apply to the stock market. We are not as conscious creatures as we believe we are, we still have a deep connection to nature. I don't care to call it the moon, or the sun or the stars, it just is what it is.

 

22 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

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.

See, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

[OriZ 3,165]

30 minutes ago, bcking said:

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.

My point is that it would be your opinion that the population to the right is beyond 1. Someone on the right would say it's the population on the left that is beyond -1. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle as at the end of the day nature does strive for symmetry.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

What I am saying is - Fibonacci as well as other math can be and is applied daily in nature, and it can be applied to human nature as well, and so can physics. There are other forces that regulate us. Ever heard of socionomics? I deal with this on a daily basis, I see how fibonacci numbers even apply to the stock market. We are not as conscious creatures as we believe we are, we still have a deep connection to nature. I don't care to call it the moon, or the sun or the stars, it just is what it is.

 

so glad you're not calling it the moon. hate to be the bearer of bad news but, the moon isn't even real. https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

My point is that it would be your opinion that the population to the right is beyond 1. Someone on the right would say it's the population on the left that is beyond -1. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle as at the end of the day nature does strive for symmetry.

It was never my opinion that is a positively skewed distribution, it was my opinion that it COULD be and that there was no natural law or anything that requires it to be symmetric. Human behaviour doesn't have to reach symmetry.

 

As i said, what we consider "middle" is like a mean, but not necessarily a median. We define it as a middle, but that doesn't mean there can't be more outliers on one side Vs the other.

 

I can't make a statement to what the actual reality is, just stating that it doesn't have to be a normal distribution.

[smilesammich 10,727]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It was in reference to the distribution of extremists on either side.  If you wish to believe that they exist only on one side that is your prerogative.  It goes back to the OP showing how Trump supporters were treated by the in tolerant Left.  Responses stated that there is no such thing as the Alt Left, and my assertion is it doesn't matter what they are called, they are there.  Like I said earlier, the real question is how the moderates on each side acknowledge those extremists. 

i don't doubt they exist on both sides, i doubt their relevance and 'truthiness' is equal. the op is nothing but a hodgepodge of internet pictures, it doesn't 'show' anything. 

[OriZ 3,165]

27 minutes ago, bcking said:

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.

Umm, HUGELY disagree with your first sentence, so that's a non starter for any potential conversation about that, because my work begs to hugely differ and it will be a waste of time to try and convince someone else otherwise who doesn't want to believe it. Again, literally everywhere you'd look you'd find something that's got to do with the golden ratio.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I got a nosebleed 3 pages ago... 

[OriZ 3,165]

7 minutes ago, bcking said:

It was never my opinion that is a positively skewed distribution, it was my opinion that it COULD be and that there was no natural law or anything that requires it to be symmetric. Human behaviour doesn't have to reach symmetry.

 

As i said, what we consider "middle" is like a mean, but not necessarily a median. We define it as a middle, but that doesn't mean there can't be more outliers on one side Vs the other.

 

I can't make a statement to what the actual reality is, just stating that it doesn't have to be a normal distribution.

I would rather "assume" it is a normal distribution until proven otherwise, than assume it is not until proven otherwise. First prove to me there are more outliers on one side vs the other and then we'll talk.  My impression, even without trying to apply math or physics is that it's pretty equal.

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Umm, HUGELY disagree with your first sentence, so that's a non starter for any potential conversation about that, because my work begs to hugely differ and it will be a waste of time to try and convince someone else otherwise who doesn't want to believe it. Again, literally everywhere you'd look you'd find something that's got to do with the golden ratio.

I admit that was a hugely broad statement i made which looking back I realise was obviously false. Apologies.

 

I was thinking specifically about this scenario and then stupidly made my statement very broad.

 

While i agree mathematical sequences and models can apply to human behaviour, i don't think the rules necessarily apply in this situation. The political spectrum is not "nature", it is a very arbitrary, and the dividing lines are fairly new. There have always been differences of opinions among humans, but what the middle is constantly changes just like the entire conversation. While nature, including ourselves, may strive  towards symmetry the key word is strive. I don't think we are in a true normal distribution and i think before we get there (assuming we are heading in that direction) the conversation will change, there will be a new spectrum centered on other topics and the distribution will fluctuate.

 

While i agree you can apply mathematical models to behaviour, the specific normal distribution model doesn't have to apply here. It doesn't even actually apply in a lot of situations we try to force it to apply. We model things and talk about how close they are, but they hardly ever actually fully fit the model. 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I would rather "assume" it is a normal distribution until proven otherwise, than assume it is not until proven otherwise. First prove to me there are more outliers on one side vs the other and then we'll talk.  My impression, even without trying to apply math or physics is that it's pretty equal.

I'm not assuming either one. I'm making no assumption Vs your assumption.

 

I'm saying it could be any. It is likely something close to, but not exactly a normal distribution. Very few things fit exactly a normal distribution. Things trend TOWARDS it, which is different.

[OriZ 3,165]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I admit that was a hugely broad statement i made which looking back I realise was obviously false. Apologies.

 

I was thinking specifically about this scenario and then stupidly made my statement very broad.

 

While i agree mathematical sequences and models can apply to human behaviour, i don't think the rules necessarily apply in this situation. The political spectrum is not "nature", it is a very arbitrary, and the dividing lines are fairly new. There have always been differences of opinions among humans, but what the middle is constantly changes just like the entire conversation. While nature, including ourselves, may strive  towards symmetry the key word is strive. I don't think we are in a true normal distribution and i think before we get there (assuming we are heading in that direction) the conversation will change, there will be a new spectrum centered on other topics and the distribution will fluctuate.

 

While i agree you can apply mathematical models to behaviour, the specific normal distribution model doesn't have to apply here. It doesn't even actually apply in a lot of situations we try to force it to apply. We model things and talk about how close they are, but they hardly ever actually fully fit the model. 

 

Just now, bcking said:

I'm not assuming either one. I'm making no assumption Vs your assumption.

 

I'm saying it could be any. It is likely something close to, but not exactly a normal distribution. Very few things fit exactly a normal distribution. Things trend TOWARDS it, which is different.

I would agree with you nothing ever fits precisely, whether it is human nature or just nature, so we can find some common ground there. My original reply to you was in regards to the extremely skewed bell curve you posted. I get that it was only an example, but I think it's alot closer to the "normal" than it is to quite that skew. I don't delude myself for a second however, that it looks exactly like the one I posted either, but I think it would be close enough to it.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

I would agree with you nothing ever fits precisely, whether it is human nature or just nature, so we can find some common ground there. My original reply to you was in regards to the extremely skewed bell curve you posted. I get that it was only an example, but I think it's alot closer to the "normal" than it is to quite that skew. I don't delude myself for a second however, that it looks exactly like the one I posted either, but I think it would be close enough to it.

Ya i didn't pick that graph to actually say it is closest to it, just using that as an example of another type of distribution. Literally just googled positive skew and it was the one with the least business on the graph.

 

When we talk about distributions and try to fit things to a normal distribution it is in an effort to predict things. We like to assume a normal distribution in nature in a lot of situations because it is "close enough" such that when we try to predict a future outcome we come close.

 

The actual reality is that nothing is really exactly a normal distribution. They are just "close enough" to use it for prediction. Actual reality is different. So even if it is closest to a normal distribution there is still likely some small skew just don't know where that lies.

 

Again for me i think the key is how we define the "middle". Being left Vs right is rather arbitrary. The middle isn't the exact 50% point. It isn't a median. It may be a mean but even then it is unlikely. To argue that the middle on the political spectrum is both the mean and the median at the same time (a requirement for a normal distribution) is, i think, a faulty assumption. It's a more static location, with people's views moving more rapidly than what we consider the "middle" to be moves.

 

I now have to get to work

[smilesammich 10,727]

22 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I got a nosebleed 3 pages ago... 

there's a mathematical explanation for that nosebleed, probably pi.