.

I'm going to use OD as the data we discuss.

Let's look at all postings in August.

Let's take 10 typical lefties and 10 righties from OD.

We'll probably end up with over 1,000 postings on each side. We'll analyze the total collection.

You'll notice that I am not trying to pick out specific posts and say, "see this supports my view."

It's easy to do that but it is non-productive. If the only goal is to win an argument you 'cherry pick' your data to support that view.

But if you want to understand you take a representative sample and analyze it.

So let's do that.

One more thing, what do we do with these labels?

Well, as imperfect as they are, for this simple 'thought experiment' will put people in one of two camps. So folks will say I am on the right and let's say elchivito or tonkovich are on the left. (no slight intended)

So using that as a rough guide let's take the top 10 most exemplary leftist and rightists and compare them.

If we actually do this experiment instead of talk about it I would do a google search of whom we picked and then search for words, phrase, etc. We'll get into the specifics later.

So what would we search for? Here's a list, it's just a suggestion. The order is not significant. I'll put down some things and we'll see what happens.

1. Using implied profanity or highly derisive terms towards those that differ. That's not the same as being critical. One could say, I think you are evasive and incapable of answering. That's civil. But if you say, "that guys a POS" or similar, then your over the top.

2. Let's go even farther, though this is harder to quantify, which side is more civil? Here's some reasonable (I think ways to measure).

3. Who apologizes more to their opponents?, Who corrects errors or retracts mis-statements more?

4. When asked for assistance, a link, clarification who responds specifically and who ignores, give partial answers or acts with contempt. For example, in DD, if someone asks, what's the idle speed of a 95 300D NA who says 650 or here's a link and who says, "did you use the search button?" or, "it's in the FSM?"

5. Who says, "I see some merit in what you are saying?" You get the idea. Next area.

6. Who presents their ideas from a factual, analytical or reasoned manner?

7. Who argues more from a repetitious, emotional or inflammatory manner?

8. Who relies more on anectdotal evidence instead of the perspective of the largest segment of society? As an example if we say change the law so that 1% of the population benefits but 99% pay the price which side predominantly argues for the 1% and which for the 99%

*** QUICK NOTE: At this point I'm not saying which, if either approach is better, I just want us to see how the different sides behave.

9. Similar to above: who relies upon outliers for their arguments. Case in point: last year I walked around with a plastic bag, basically sewn to my guts. It caught my waste and I had to empty it every couple of hours. Which side would say my employer should spend $10,000+ to modify bathrooms so I could do this and which wouldn't.

10. Last one (for now) which side engages in fallacious arguments, typically strawman or guilt by association. So if someone says this mass murderer uses chop-sticks, I use chop-sticks, therefore I'm like the mass murderer - which side uses that more?

Remember, my question is based on the already recorded actions on this site for this month.

Let's talk about it, and if necessary, I'll do a transparent (you'll can see every step) analysis of the data.

-