Nature (especially POLITICS) follows the BELL CURVE.

(MODS NOTE: The most accurate definition of this piece would be "opinion expressed as persuasive rhetoric," Thanks, TD)

The latest nasty to call someone is “Centrist.” It has joined “Liberal” (from the Right Wing Lexicon), defined as “a person or a philosophy to be avoided; traitor, turncoat, fool.” Statistically, this is a terrible call: reason being: the Center outnumbers us. Badly.

Time for Statistics 101.

When we look at the way things are randomly distributed in large populations, be they car parts or people, Quality Control uses Statistics to define the spread of where dimensions will show up on a graph. The vast majority of results fall in the middle, and the resultant graph resembles a bell, hence the name; “Bell Curve.” This result is mathematically predictable throughout all of nature, humanity, and the inventions of man. Take gambling, for example. Shooting “Craps,” the similarity is glaring: do we see as many "snakeyes" or "boxcars" (2 or 12) thrown on the dice of life as the many derivations of 5, 6, and 7?

Of course not. The middle values will always predominate. Always. People 5’ 8” will always vastly outnumber people 7’ and 4’: this is the nature of reality.

And this is where we of the Left make our error in decrying the middle path: there are one HELL of a lot more of THEM than US. I don't like the middle of the road; I'm a Socialist: but that puts me STATISTICALLY at the far LEFT of the bell curve. If this were not so, The Socialist Workers Party would have held the presidency since the Great Depression, or at least until “happy days” were here again.

Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum are the Jesse Helmses, Lester Maddoxes and Zell Millers of the world: bigots, elitists, fascists and conservative opportunists. Most of the time, they don't win either; but their advantage is that it is easier to HIDE IN THE MIDDLE, coming from the FAR RIGHT than it is coming from the FAR LEFT: hence, we get George W. Bush, his father, and Ronald Reagan.

Here's the scam: People from the FAR RIGHT DON'T LOOK AT CENTRISTS AS TRAITORS, THEY LOOK AT THEM AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONVERTS, OR "MARKS." The first syllable in "conservative" isn't "con" for no good reason. However, people from the FAR LEFT look at Centrists as wafflers at best and traitors to the people at worst: hard to warm up to someone calling you names, isn’t it?

This is normal behaviour for Leftists. If you look at the history of the Left, we are always the first to sign up for the latest "purge" of those lamented individuals in our own ranks who practice whatever is currently viewed as "political heresy." Until recently, this sort of action in the conservatives has been anathema: anyone remember George Romney or Nelson Rockefeller? They weren't VERY liberal, but they were as close to liberal as republicans can get.

The Rightists in this country, with attendant aberration, treat their heretics as errant children. In fact, the Right Wing/Republican Party has a saying: "Republicans don't expel their liberals: they convert them." Maybe it's a "show me the money" thing, I don't know, but whatever they're doing, it seems to work pretty damned well.

The long-term result of this is that Far Left Wing of American Politics is helping the country commit slow social suicide. If you think bad news and a "stormcrow" message will grab the middle and pull them to the Left, think again. All you have to do is look at the Television ratings and you'll know you're wrong. I wish it weren't so: we are so rich and so powerful in this country that we could actually make doing the “right” thing and taking care of our brothers and sisters all over the world fashionable. This is of course the best form of "defense spending," as when the masses are satisfied and well cared for then aggressive Nationalism looks absurd: why rock a well stocked boat in calm seas?

There aren't enough of us on our end of the curve, and it will always be that way as long as there is still a Right Wing to oppose us. What we preach is very radical to the middle of the curve which is where the vast majority stand, and for good or ill, they don't like big or fast changes.

So what does this all mean? Only that we vilify and demean the middle at our peril. True, the Republic's Pendulum will swing to the Left eventually, but the longer and harder we try to drag it over to the Left only means that when it finally gets moving, it will be going one HELL of a clip at the bottom of the swing, and anyone standing in its way is likely to get smacked pretty good, AND THEY WON’T LOVE US FOR IT.

Like that crowd in the middle.

:thumbsup:

However, I've heard Rush and his minions plenty of times railing against the centrists or moderates as having no principles or backbone. BOTH ends of the curve badmouth the middle.

(Full disclosure: I'm at about 40-45 on the X axis shown above, so I guess I'm one of those "unprincipled" "waffling" centrists.)

Rush's audience is the OTHER far end of the curve. The vast majority of rePukes I talk to say the CENTER is actually on THEIR side.

I am certain that the list of "ignores" I'm on is vasty and long. Too bad for the party, I.M. not so H.O.

Why do you think it was so important for the righties to take over the media? To gather as many centrists into their fold as they can. Just like an Amway sales pitch, over and over, nonstop beating the war drums.

The Left is too fragmented in this country. They hate each other as much or more than right wingers. There's this constant search for ideological purity rather than finding ways to mend fences with fellow lefties. That's my take anyway.

I swear, if I hear another tinfoil hat post about DLC/DNC taking over the world, I'll puke in my wastebasket.

It has some fairly gaping holes in.

When we look at the way things are randomly distributed in large populations, be they car parts or people, Quality Control uses Statistics to define the spread of where dimensions will show up on a graph. The vast majority of results fall in the middle, and the resultant graph resembles a bell, hence the name; “Bell Curve.” This result is mathematically predictable throughout all of nature, humanity, and the inventions of man. Take gambling, for example. Shooting “Craps,” the similarity is glaring: do we see as many "snakeyes" or "boxcars" (2 or 12) thrown on the dice of life as the many derivations of 5, 6, and 7?

If you look at a production line, you'll find that the products coming off it are not normally distributed, they're distributed under a poisson curve. You can call them normally distributed only if you ignore the rejects and focus on trivial differences in the others, treating them as though they meant something and had different weights.

And since dice don't exist in nature, but are a product of our choices, what happens if we choose to put on a different arrangement of spots. Five sixes and a one, for example. Then how often would 'boxcars' appear as opposed to sevens?

Similarly, what is the effect of social conditioning on distribution? We see the majority of people self-report as being zeros (exclusively het) on the Kinsey Scale. That's not a normal distribution. Is it a natural one? Certainly the fundies say so, but if we look at cultures that exhibit less pro-natalist religiosity we see it isn't. Among the Azande of southern Sudan, for example, not only is male same-sex sexual expression accepted, it's expected. Young men who fail to exhibit it are viewed as not normal.

We can say something is normally distributed only if the distribution has not been modified by intentionality. When we make choices, all bets are off.

Political positions are choices. They do not occur in nature any more than dice or cards or any other cultural artifact does. Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that 'centrist' politics will be found naturally among a majority. If that were true, the same would show up in, e.g., Canada, the UK, and Oz (three countries most closely aligned with the US culturally). But as we know, that's totally not the case. In the US, the political spectrum has been skewed far to the right compared to those other countries.

I urge you to rethink your thesis.

"If you look at a production line, you'll find that the products coming off it are not normally distributed, they're distributed under a poisson curve. You can call them normally distributed only if you ignore the rejects and focus on trivial differences in the others, treating them as though they meant something and had different weights."

Processes in modern manufacturing producing rejects and cPK<1.33 are not considered stable, and therefore not subject to SPC Statistics. The customer will cancel your contract. Look at any stable process given enough time, and the measurement values will follow a bell curve.

As to using the term "poisson curve," or "Gaussian distribution": fine. Use any of the above. It still shows the vast majority of points in a random event sampling occur in the center of the curve. Here's a BIOLOGICAL oriented page.

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03438/PBC97Poisson/PoissonPage.html

Check down the page, where the Gaussian and Poisson distributions are both referred to as "BELL SHAPED."

Use whatever name you want, but the fringe is NOT the norm, and we can pretend we are all we want, but if we make our fringe de rigeur, then we will lose MOST of the Center. Then we cannot win.

Because you ignored the fact that there ARE defects (it's guaranteed--even Deming says so) in any manufacturing process and they DO skew any graph of the results.

And you've ignored the effect of human intentionality (e.g., my restatement of your dice example, and my US vs Europe and human sexuality examples).

Political choices do not come about because of the operation of physical law, but by human choice driven by the exigencies of the moment.

I'll try a shorter version of a previous poster's point.

Political choices are NOT natural biological trends. Comparing one against the other is a logical fallacy.

Political choices, and in fact all public opinion, need not necessarily follow a bell curve or any other curve. Human opinion is malleable.

I hope that got through.

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

I'd first have to know what technically, makes someone a centerist or a moderate.

Does it mean that they hold liberal views on some issues and conservative views on others?

Does it mean that they hold moderate views on ALL issues?

Does it mean that they think both the left and right are wrong and think the answer lies somewhere in the middle?

Does it mean that they don't believe in anything and think the solution is the compromise?

What exactly is a centerist?

i.e., fine with Choice, queers, and maybe dope, but very hot on keeping wealth concentrating upward.

One must make educated guesses, or what's a "poll" for?

I am merely stating that if you go for a platform that is Radical, you will likely lose. Remember that from his bullshit lack of commitment, everyone thought Bush was a MODERATE.

While tossing two dice the distribution is the normal curve. Toss one die and the distribution is flat line. Are some things normally distributed? Yes. Are all things normally distributed? No.

Try this:

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03438/PBC97Poisson/PoissonPage.html

If you specify an evenly distributed game, even distribution will follow. If you just ask the Amish or the Klan their opinion, you will likely get skewed results.

Rather than say stuff like: We know the distribution in craps is normal and that there are many normal distributions in nature, let us assume that politics also have this normal distribution.

"(MODS NOTE: The most accurate definition of this piece would be "opinion expressed as persuasive rhetoric," Thanks, TD)"

As to PROVING this assumption, I would think it moot. If you pin your hopes on the Far Left, I can only hope you're right, wish you luck, and be pleasantly suprised if you are right.

rather than 'able to persuade', because I'm not at all persuaded.

Any sufficiently large sample size will always fall under a nomal distribution. I don't remember the name of this rule offhand, though.

Two kinds of people will try to refute the truth of that fact; the far-right wing nuts who don't want it to be true and the far-left wing nuts who don't want it to be true.

I'm sure taht a poll here on DU would show us the left half of a bell curve with relatively few members falling really far to the left. But even then I'm equally sure that Kucunich supporters would seek to refute the results of that poll because the facts were not to their liking. Such is the nature of true believers. Facts MUST be discarded if one is to continue holding one's cherished beliefs.

Seems that the tendancy is to pee on people trying to politely convince. If they aren't convinced, they get testy.

Possible doubts?

it's total rubbish.