Explained liberal and conservative to my 10 yo and 7 yo on the way to school. I ended up describing them as forms of bias that each produced distinctive patterns of error when they hit the truth.
-
-
Well we saw in history that one side can be massively wrong (lazy example: nazy Germany). I guess that in most democracies nowadays it's as you say, quite balanced. Until it isn't.
-
There are tons of issues where (maybe with hindsight, for some) we realize the right course was not at all in the middle. Slavery is a super obvious one
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In a 2 parties system, it seems dictated by game theory that each party will strive to embody the most acceptable view for 51% of voters. Being wrong for half the people and being wrong half of the time probably both put you in the middle of the same gaussian.
-
Yes but nothing says that voters are distributed equally around the "right" vue, if there 's one. One side may have much bigger biased than the other, and embodying those 50% VS the other won' t necessarily put the average at the middle, right?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“Somewhere in the middle” is it’s own bias (Overton window). A neutral party would be left of liberal or right of conservative on some individual issues most likely. The liberals/progressives of 1850 still didn’t want women voting.
-
I bought this poster and framed it, then put on the wall above the home computer: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.