[shawndrost]

But which is it? Do you agree with Graham's essay and your own graph, or do you disagree?

It sounds like you believe in the graph, but don't want to turn people off. Just own your belief.

FWIW I think you should disagree with Graham's essay and your own graph. Saying that "left" and "right" were both 50% wrong is like saying the same about "federalist" and "anti-federalist". Even if the sides are 50% wrong, the free thinkers would be widely distributed.

[shw1n]

Ironically this seems like an example of the tribalism my essay is about -- I agree with his essay, but only partially agree with the graph

I think the hump could be slightly shifted left or right, but the points on the graph are the averages of an individual's entire collection of views

I don't believe an independent thinker would come up with a set of views that perfectly match the left or right's doctrine since at least some of those views are somewhat arbitrary -- in that sense I agree with him

[jampekka]

There are also centrist doctrines. Even explicit ones like the radical centrism.

A major problem is trying to project a hugely multifaceted phenomenon like political outlook into one, or even few, dimensions. And then even discretizing the one dimension. And then categorizing (other) people's thinking or ideologies into these.

Another problem is assuming that there is some universal "optimal" or even good policy. Instead there can be even fundamentally contradicting interests or goals between e.g., dare I say, classes which can lead to well informed

I'm not claiming you don't appreciate these, but the conclusions to me seem to require such problematic assumptions. The intent is likely something like trying to simplify complex phenomena into something manageable (i.e. an ideology), but these tend to be very leaky abstractions.

[duffmancd]

I think the issue might stem from the fact that (as I read it) the essay is talking about "for the people who are moderate (in the middle of the left/right axis), some are distributed higher on your graph, while some are lower". Which says nothing about "for the people who are distributed higher on the graph, how many are in the middle of the left/right axis". Your graph makes explicit an answer to the second question which the essay avoids. (There is a bit of an implication in the last two paragraphs, but PG is explicit it's only about people he knows).

[hgomersall]

You even say so in your essay. I'd say an issue is people picking up on the graph but ignoring what you wrote.

[leoedin]

I don't think the graph agrees with the essay.

In the essay, the "unintentional moderate" is defined as someone who holds all kinds of views, some from the far left, some from the far right, some from the middle - but by chance the average of their views makes them a moderate.

I had to go looking for that, because the graph doesn't show that at all. I think the graph is a bad take on the ideas in Paul Graham's article.

[shw1n]

yeah fair, I added an explanation that each point is an average