Bell Curves and Two-Party Dominance

[Ontologuy]

One can argue that in a winner-take-all format determined from a mere plurality of votes that a two-party system is inevitable.

And one can argue that the runner-up party tends to woo factions to increase their winning odds next time and so becomes a hodge-podge during lean times.

But that doesn't explain why the specific foundational philosophical differences between the two parties come about as they do.

I, however, have a hunch about that.

The substantive nature of foundational human traits relevant to political perspective breaks down into a set of bell curves.

With a bell curve, the number/percentage of occurrence is plotted along the vertical and the topical measure is plotted along the horizontal.

The nature of a bell curve is that there are two lips, one on the left, and one on the right.

One bell curve in the set is the testosterone levels of males. Most males score in the middle, but those scoring high, those on the right of the bell curve, are dominant, and those scoring low on the left are .. not.

Another bell curve is estrogen levels of females .. which again sports the same distribution and meaning as the bell curve for male testosterone.

Left to their own devices, dominant males value social and economic-fiscal freedom, with their opposite-spectrum males valuing social and economic-fiscal security.

With females, dominant females value social and economic-fiscal security, with their opposite-spectrum females valuing social and economic-fiscal freedom.

Remember: testosterone and estrogen function in different ways. Testosterone functions to facilitate thinking, it has been shown, and estrogen functions to facilitate feeling. Thinkers and feelers have fundamentally different perspectives about relevant aspects of humanity.

Now, since we live in a world of scarcity of basic resources, there is competition.

The competition breaks down again into two components: those who control the resources and those who serve those who control the resources, or, in other words, management and workers.

There is also age, and age specific to sex .. all which break down into a bell curve for the population.

The two lips of the bell curve define the dualism of the matter being referenced.

All the bell curves about fundamentally relevant simple human basics can be swiveled to match with like attitudes that reflect a more complex alliance.

But, in the end, there will only be two dominant camps as a result.

Third parties develop when someone takes perhaps just one of the bell curves and utilizes a part of it solely as the philosophical foundation. Libertarians, those who value social and economic-fiscal freedom are found more often on the left lip of the age measurement of males, whereas "justicerians", those who value social and economic-fiscal security are found more often on the right lip of the age measurement of females.

The problem with third parties is that taking only one part of the humanity-relevant bell curve to base an entire philosophy is not appealing to the great majority of people who value all of their bell curves' dynamics. So these third-party spinoffs are not likely going to draw large numbers of people.

I believe it may take some work, but my guess is it can be shown that fundamental characteristics of people -- sex hormone, age, and the like -- plotted on a bell curve will eventually lead to just two major alliances.

Because most people fall in the middle of a graph one might wonder why these great majority middles don't rule, so to speak.

I wonder that it's because those at the lips of a bell curve are more greatly affected by winning and losing, have more to lose from losing and more to gain from winning, and that makes them more politically active .. and bell curve middles don't readily experience their alliance as their differences in topical measurement are so small.

If the bell curve middles could unite and become active, the lips, with respect to power, would greatly diminish.

I find the thought of this concept fascinating .. perhaps worth pursuing in depth to produce a better more obvious and complete presentation than I've presented here .. or maybe worth a discussion to so develop.

 

[DDD]

One can argue that in a winner-take-all format determined from a mere plurality of votes that a two-party system is inevitable.

And one can argue that the runner-up party tends to woo factions to increase their winning odds next time and so becomes a hodge-podge during lean times.

But that doesn't explain why the specific foundational philosophical differences between the two parties come about as they do.

I, however, have a hunch about that.

The substantive nature of foundational human traits relevant to political perspective breaks down into a set of bell curves.

With a bell curve, the number/percentage of occurrence is plotted along the vertical and the topical measure is plotted along the horizontal.

The nature of a bell curve is that there are two lips, one on the left, and one on the right.

One bell curve in the set is the testosterone levels of males. Most males score in the middle, but those scoring high, those on the right of the bell curve, are dominant, and those scoring low on the left are .. not.

Another bell curve is estrogen levels of females .. which again sports the same distribution and meaning as the bell curve for male testosterone.

Left to their own devices, dominant males value social and economic-fiscal freedom, with their opposite-spectrum males valuing social and economic-fiscal security.

With females, dominant females value social and economic-fiscal security, with their opposite-spectrum females valuing social and economic-fiscal freedom.

Remember: testosterone and estrogen function in different ways. Testosterone functions to facilitate thinking, it has been shown, and estrogen functions to facilitate feeling. Thinkers and feelers have fundamentally different perspectives about relevant aspects of humanity.

Now, since we live in a world of scarcity of basic resources, there is competition.

The competition breaks down again into two components: those who control the resources and those who serve those who control the resources, or, in other words, management and workers.

There is also age, and age specific to sex .. all which break down into a bell curve for the population.

The two lips of the bell curve define the dualism of the matter being referenced.

All the bell curves about fundamentally relevant simple human basics can be swiveled to match with like attitudes that reflect a more complex alliance.

But, in the end, there will only be two dominant camps as a result.

Third parties develop when someone takes perhaps just one of the bell curves and utilizes a part of it solely as the philosophical foundation. Libertarians, those who value social and economic-fiscal freedom are found more often on the left lip of the age measurement of males, whereas "justicerians", those who value social and economic-fiscal security are found more often on the right lip of the age measurement of females.

The problem with third parties is that taking only one part of the humanity-relevant bell curve to base an entire philosophy is not appealing to the great majority of people who value all of their bell curves' dynamics. So these third-party spinoffs are not likely going to draw large numbers of people.

I believe it may take some work, but my guess is it can be shown that fundamental characteristics of people -- sex hormone, age, and the like -- plotted on a bell curve will eventually lead to just two major alliances.

Because most people fall in the middle of a graph one might wonder why these great majority middles don't rule, so to speak.

I wonder that it's because those at the lips of a bell curve are more greatly affected by winning and losing, have more to lose from losing and more to gain from winning, and that makes them more politically active .. and bell curve middles don't readily experience their alliance as their differences in topical measurement are so small.

If the bell curve middles could unite and become active, the lips, with respect to power, would greatly diminish.

I find the thought of this concept fascinating .. perhaps worth pursuing in depth to produce a better more obvious and complete presentation than I've presented here .. or maybe worth a discussion to so develop.

Testosterone is not a male exclusive hormone. Females have them also but not of course at the same quantity.

Further could you state the resources used to link testosterone to greater thinking abilities? I have heard of testosterone and greater competitive, fighting skills. But when you mention testosterone and thinking this joke of people high in testosterone (i.e., football players) came to my mind:

Funny Jokes | College Entrance Exam: For Football Players Joke | Comedy Central

 

[samsmart]

The two lips of the bell curve define the dualism of the matter being referenced.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ontologuy]

Testosterone is not a male exclusive hormone. Females have them also but not of course at the same quantity.

Yes, and perhaps a more accurate bell curve for males would be "testosterone level minus estrogen level" and vice versa for females.

Further could you state the resources used to link testosterone to greater thinking abilities? I have heard of testosterone and greater competitive, fighting skills. But when you mention testosterone and thinking this joke of people high in testosterone (i.e., football players) came to my mind: Funny Jokes | College Entrance Exam: For Football Players Joke | Comedy Central

The function of thinking does not at all imply intelligence, as those who are dominantly feelers have scored high on IQ tests, just that the nature of the intelligence is different, feelers being stronger in some aspects of intelligence than thinkers and vice versa.

In his book "Please Understand Me II", David Keirsey presents that the thinking-feeling scale for determining human temperament and character is the only one of the four with a gender preference, males scoring a preference of thinking over feeling 60-40 and with females scoring a preference of feeling over thinking 60-40.

Thinking is foundationally about relating one's self to the world outside our skin, relating to "things", thus the word "think"ing. Males, testosterone dominant, have been thinkers ever since they had to fight the "saber-toothed tiger" for survival and risk their lives merely to bring home food.

Feeling is foundationally about relating one's self to the world inside our skin, our body and all that we experience within our body, somatically and emotionally. Females, estrogen dominant, have been feelers ever since they had to feel carrying, birthing and raising children, and being weaker than males, feeling being dominated.

Thinkers and feelers have foundationally different perspectives that create a different set of, understandably, often diametrically opposed values.

 

[DDD]

Yes, and perhaps a more accurate bell curve for males would be "testosterone level minus estrogen level" and vice versa for females.

The function of thinking does not at all imply intelligence, as those who are dominantly feelers have scored high on IQ tests, just that the nature of the intelligence is different, feelers being stronger in some aspects of intelligence than thinkers and vice versa.

In his book "Please Understand Me II", David Keirsey presents that the thinking-feeling scale for determining human temperament and character is the only one of the four with a gender preference, males scoring a preference of thinking over feeling 60-40 and with females scoring a preference of feeling over thinking 60-40.

Thinking is foundationally about relating one's self to the world outside our skin, relating to "things", thus the word "think"ing. Males, testosterone dominant, have been thinkers ever since they had to fight the "saber-toothed tiger" for survival and risk their lives merely to bring home food.

Feeling is foundationally about relating one's self to the world inside our skin, our body and all that we experience within our body, somatically and emotionally. Females, estrogen dominant, have been feelers ever since they had to feel carrying, birthing and raising children, and being weaker than males, feeling being dominated.

Thinkers and feelers have foundationally different perspectives that create a different set of, understandably, often diametrically opposed values.

I see that you are building some meaning for yourself here. But just for the record testosterone is usually higher in males compared to females, and men may be more thinkers compared to women feelers, but that does not mean that it is the hormone of testosterone that causes men to be more thinkers than women.

Whether it is testosterone that causes men to think more or not there should be a study cited. On the study randomly chosen men should be randomly assigned to two groups. One that receives testosterone injection and the other that receives water as an injection (or nothing at all). After this treatment all participants should be tested on the thinking scale so as alas to conclude whether the means between these two groups are scientifically different enough to imply that testosterone is the direct cause or not. Without such a study this testosterone-think link is unjust and as of now on this thread rests on an assumption.

 

[Ontologuy]

I see that you are building some meaning for yourself here. But just for the record testosterone is usually higher in males compared to females, and men may be more thinkers compared to women feelers, but that does not mean that it is the hormone of testosterone that causes men to be more thinkers than women.

Whether it is testosterone that causes men to think more or not there should be a study cited. On the study randomly chosen men should be randomly assigned to two groups. One that receives testosterone injection and the other that receives water as an injection (or nothing at all). After this treatment all participants should be tested on the thinking scale so as alas to conclude whether the means between these two groups are scientifically different enough to imply that testosterone is the direct cause or not. Without such a study this testosterone-think link is unjust and as of now on this thread rests on an assumption.

Granted, I am merely speculating in general, using the correlation of high net testosterone in males to historically free social and economic-fiscal behavior.

That the observed traits would correlate with high net testosterone has been shown.

And thus it seemed reasonable to use male net testosterone and female net estrogen as the horizontal measure in the bell curve.

But my point is that whatever measure you use to get to the bottom of male nature and female nature, there is definitely a bell curve unique to males and unique to females that divides the groups with respect to the freedom v. security foundation that underpins the wings of the traditional political spectrum.

Rather than criticize the specifics here, seek instead to understand the concept, to realize the potential validity in explaining the nature-differences in the two dominant parties.

Men v. women, if left to their own devices, have foundationally different ways of looking at the issues, as do those of differing age, differing ownership levels, whether they have kids or not, and the like few foundational human aspects.

These naturally translate to bell curves that have two lips, and it is these lips that form the foundational of wingish perspectives that create dualisms .. resulting in two dominant political parties.