How the tolerant left treats others who disagree

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

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

Dont encourage them

 

Praise you for one sentence responses 

[OriZ 3,165]

8 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

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

Well considering his nose is not a square it would have to be

[OriZ 3,165]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

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

I don't think when applying the curve to human behavior you necessarily need to define a median or a mean. I try to look at it in the same way as it is originally intended - event probability. So, the people at the top of the curve would just be the most "probable". While I am not trying to say people are events, it is still easier than considering them a mean or median. So the majority of people would be in or around the NON extreme parts of the curve as that is the most probable outcome. The least probable with about the same level of probability on each side would be the extreme ones. 

 

I have to get some work done as well...

Edited March 22, 2017 by OriZ

[Teddy B 17,252]

Everyone needs to have a little tolerance.

 

 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I got a nosebleed 3 pages ago... 

I got an ice cream headache and I'm not eating any ice cream.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

I don't think when applying the curve to human behavior you necessarily need to define a median or a mean. I try to look at it in the same way as it is originally intended - event probability. So, the people at the top of the curve would just be the most "probable". While I am not trying to say people are events, it is still easier than considering them a mean or median. So the majority of people would be in or around the NON extreme parts of the curve as that is the most probable outcome. The least probable with about the same level of probability on each side would be the extreme ones. 

 

I have to get some work done as well...

I agree that the distribution likely has some peak where you the probability is highest if you were to randomly pick someone out of a crowd.

 

My point of bringing up a mean/median was to point out that having a peak doesn't mean that peak falls exactly at 50%, with an equal number of people in an equal distribution on either side.

 

If you had a population of 200 people with 100 in the middle. You could have 50 on the right all the way at the extreme and 50 on the left that are quite close to the middle (this is an example, not arguing it is the way it is). If you were to pick someone out at random you still have the highest probability of picking one of those people in the middle.

 

It all depends on how you define your middle and in the case of politics it is defined separately from the actual distribution of opinions. It's not like every month we poll everyone and move the "middle" slightly so that it is always the average. 

 

I think the better arguement for a normalized curve would be if you took all left leaning people into a pile, and all right leaning people into a separate pile. Regardless of the total numbers (since they aren't perfectly equal), you weighted each group based on how they approach the "middle" (which would be going left for the right and vice versa).

 

That i think would likely model closer to a normal distribution, but obviously you are messing quite a bit with reality in that case, just to fit a curve.

[OriZ 3,165]

27 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Everyone needs to have a little tolerance.

 

 

 

I loved that dude.

[OriZ 3,165]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

I agree that the distribution likely has some peak where you the probability is highest if you were to randomly pick someone out of a crowd.

 

My point of bringing up a mean/median was to point out that having a peak doesn't mean that peak falls exactly at 50%, with an equal number of people in an equal distribution on either side.

 

If you had a population of 200 people with 100 in the middle. You could have 50 on the right all the way at the extreme and 50 on the left that are quite close to the middle (this is an example, not arguing it is the way it is). If you were to pick someone out at random you still have the highest probability of picking one of those people in the middle.

 

It all depends on how you define your middle and in the case of politics it is defined separately from the actual distribution of opinions. It's not like every month we poll everyone and move the "middle" slightly so that it is always the average. 

 

I think the better arguement for a normalized curve would be if you took all left leaning people into a pile, and all right leaning people into a separate pile. Regardless of the total numbers (since they aren't perfectly equal), you weighted each group based on how they approach the "middle" (which would be going left for the right and vice versa).

 

That i think would likely model closer to a normal distribution, but obviously you are messing quite a bit with reality in that case, just to fit a curve.

 

Well then that begs the question, who determines the distance of each side from the middle? It's not like there's an objective source you can go to that will give you an answer. It's all entirely based on how each side perceives themselves as well as the other side.

[TBoneTX 47,533]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

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

Algebra = the national language of Algeria

Calculus = what the dental hygienist scrapes off one's teeth

---

The cop dragged a suspect before the Arkansas police judge.

"This man's guilty of bigotry, yer honor!" said the cop.  "He's got 3 wives."

"Three wives?!" thundered the judge.  "You moron!  That ain't bigotry -- that's trigonometry!"

[TBoneTX 47,533]

A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician were sitting at an outdoor cafe, in view of a house across the street.  They saw 2 people enter the house, and, a while later, 3 people exit the house.

 

"They have reproduced," said the biologist.

"The measurement wasn't accurate," said the physicist.

"If now exactly one person enters the house," said the mathematician, "it will be empty again."

[eieio 1,594]

Lets just say the amount of people on either extreme is the same. 

 

That does not account for their actions.

 

The right side is more likely to believe in law and order. The left side is more likely to believe in protests and rioting. 

 

So what we get is the left side is much more violent to the right. This is what the pictures show. Trump supporters getting assaulted by the alt left or whatever you want to call them. 

 

What you will have a hard time….or far far less, is pictures of Clinton supporters getting assaulted by the alt right….or whatever you want to call them.

 

The media and our education system are partially to blame. The media gives cover for violent leftists….but seek examples of violent right wingers. The education system is equally as bad.

 

For example. Remember just recently the media…including Clinton, were up in arms about the hate crimes against the jewish community. As soon as the main culprit was caught and revealed he was not a Trump supporter….we never heard another word about it.

[LionessDeon 2,060]

6 minutes ago, eieio said:

The right side is more likely to believe in law and order. The left side is more likely to believe in protests and rioting. Never rioted in my life, nor have my leftist friends.

 

So what we get is the left side is much more violent to the right. This is what the pictures show. Trump supporters getting assaulted by the alt left or whatever you want to call them. Those dang "snowflakes"!

 

What you will have a hard time….or far far less, is pictures of Clinton supporters getting assaulted by the alt right….or whatever you want to call them.

 

The media and our education system are partially to blame. The media gives cover for violent leftists….but seek examples of violent right wingers. The education system is equally as bad.

 

For example. Remember just recently the media…including Clinton, were up in arms about the hate crimes against the jewish community. As soon as the main culprit was caught and revealed he was not a Trump supporter….we never heard another word about it.  Maybe because the story was over. I mean how much more do you need/want to know?

Generalize much

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 hours ago, OriZ said:

I don't think when applying the curve to human behavior you necessarily need to define a median or a mean. I try to look at it in the same way as it is originally intended - event probability. So, the people at the top of the curve would just be the most "probable". While I am not trying to say people are events, it is still easier than considering them a mean or median. So the majority of people would be in or around the NON extreme parts of the curve as that is the most probable outcome. The least probable with about the same level of probability on each side would be the extreme ones. 

 

I have to get some work done as well...

what you need is a class in statistics.  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

19 minutes ago, eieio said:

Lets just say the amount of people on either extreme is the same. 

 

That does not account for their actions.

 

The right side is more likely to believe in law and order. The left side is more likely to believe in protests and rioting. 

 

So what we get is the left side is much more violent to the right. This is what the pictures show. Trump supporters getting assaulted by the alt left or whatever you want to call them. 

 

What you will have a hard time….or far far less, is pictures of Clinton supporters getting assaulted by the alt right….or whatever you want to call them.

 

The media and our education system are partially to blame. The media gives cover for violent leftists….but seek examples of violent right wingers. The education system is equally as bad.

 

For example. Remember just recently the media…including Clinton, were up in arms about the hate crimes against the jewish community. As soon as the main culprit was caught and revealed he was not a Trump supporter….we never heard another word about it.

 

 

The pictures show us nothing measurable.  Bring data and a yardstick to measure it by.   

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, OriZ said:

 

Well then that begs the question, who determines the distance of each side from the middle? It's not like there's an objective source you can go to that will give you an answer. It's all entirely based on how each side perceives themselves as well as the other side.

 

 

Don't solve for X until you understand Y