[Jolly2]

Thatcher, Meir, Bandarinaike, Indira Ghandi....in modern times it seems that, proportionately, women in presidential or prime minsterial positions are more likely to start wars, execute their rivals or preside over internal massacres than men. There just happens to be fewer women with the opportunity to do so. The line of warmongering queens stretches back via Victoria and Elizabeth I to Boudicca.

Alan. that is mere sophistry.  Wars have always been started and  enthusiastically conducted by men.  Not women.

Data doesn't bare that out. Less women have generally had power but when they have wars have been conducted,  it's simplistic to assume men are more war like then women, both sexes are aggressive just in different ways. As any girl inhabiting an all girls school is well aware.

It's character and temperament, not sex,  that is more the issue.

[Bored chemist]

Alan. that is mere sophistry.  Wars have always been started and  enthusiastically conducted by men.  Not women. 

As Alan pointed out, Maggie started the Falklands war.
Are you saying (s)he was a man?

[Bored chemist]

Data doesn't bare that out.

Please show the data.

[Jolly2]

I think we'd be better off, if we were governed by women,. Because women don't start wars. Wars are always started by men.

Its a nice idea but an assumption

"New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king."
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

[puppypower]

Politicians have a wider appeal than do scientists. The reason is most people are emotional to some degree, while far fewer people are rational. Therefore, wide spread appeal to logic and common sense is far less effective within a large population, than an appeal to emotion. Fake news appeals to emotion, since emotion can better deal with bad or wrong data, as long was it makes you feel good and/or tells you what you want to hear. There was no voter fraud therefore we will have no investigation and any suggesting otherwise will be banished. This does not appeals to reason but it will appeal to emotions.

As far as the original topic of each group within the demographics being represented in proportion to its precent of the population, the problem I have with this, is it suggests if you were born a certain way, you will forever become socially defined that way, based on shallow criteria. It pegs you by a superficial judgement and does not speak to the depths of the person. If we define male as a  caveman, this excludes males who do not like caves. One will be defined that way, by the politicians, using emotional appeal, that is not scientific or rational.

For example, if I was a male, the universal assumption is that my male mind will make me linear to only things for males and nothing else. That sounds more like the fringe groups trying to build their armies. One is not allowed to be rational and look at things in an objective way apart from my linear needs as a male groupie. Someone else; representative, will define who I am and I am required to accept that without complaint. If the rep gets better urinals, I should be happy with that since all males only want that.

This will only work for those who have been conditioned to be linear, and who lack the ability to be more spatially minded. That approach appeals to the emotions of the lowest common denominator, but not to the open expanses of reason.

We have been conditioned by the media, which thinks all groups are fringe groups who are trying to carve out a place for their linear herds. These herds are needed to create self esteem for those who lack it on their own. They need to isolate and define who they are, in a way that makes them different, and not what makes them the same as everyone else. The same as everyone else is not good to help differentiate a good tattoo  for that herd. Once you are main stream, like female or male, you can break the mold used to help differentiate you.

Defining  oneself in terms of a group means one is not intellectually and emotional self sufficient. Rather one is dependant in others to help you dress and talk. The group acts as a prosthesis.This may appeal to the left, who tend to be have the most herd of animals.  Those who are self reliant and not herd animals find this to be a fit that is not very comfortable. 

[Jolly2]

Politicians have a wider appeal than do scientists.

Depends on the politican and the scientist. 

The reason is most people are emotional to some degree, while far fewer people are rational.

I'm going to heartily disagree, scientist often merely supress their emotions, see them as an inherent negative and rigidly pursuit rational,  this I would argue is highly counterproductive. Human beings are not machines nor should they try to be. Emotions are more fundamental then thoughts. The better option is to kmow yourself and not deny your feelings.

Therefore, wide spread appeal to logic and common sense is far less effective within a large population, than an appeal to emotion. Fake news appeals to emotion, since emotion can better deal with bad or wrong data, as long was it makes you feel good and/or tells you what you want to hear. There was no voter fraud therefore we will have no investigation and any suggesting otherwise will be banished. This does not appeals to reason but it will appeal to emotions.

As far as the original topic of each group within the demographics being represented in proportion to its precent of the population, the problem I have with this, is it suggests if you were born a certain way, you will forever become socially defined that way, based on shallow criteria.

Not at all, rather it is an attempt to allow all groups in a society to be involved in the discussion.  How should those groups be chosen? Is a question this thread raises. I believe women would want a voice at the table to discuss women's issues. As would men.

It pegs you by a superficial judgement and does not speak to the depths of the person.

If this was about identity politics it would be but it isnt. All groups of importance within the society would be selected,  trade unions maybe, local business members, the police service,  and so on the idea is to get all areas of society represented in the discussion.

Please dont forget this idea relates to having local parliaments that replace local councils. Therefore it is made up of local groups.

The national parliament would be filled with representatives sent by each of the local parliaments.

And the representatives would vote for the local parliament in the national government.  So rather then as we have now where one person decides and votes as they choose to,  each vote in the national parliament would firstly be discussed and agreed in the local parliament.  One man's opinion compared to a groups opinion, and that group would be made up of  and represent all the different people in thier local area.

It's an all voices at the table idea.

One of the biggest issues society has is people not being heard or being intentionally ignored this idea seeks to give as many as possible a voice. And I would argue more.voice means more ideas and more solutions.  Collective solutions are almost always more rounded, better considered and far more developed. They are more mature.

[Jolly2]

So take the above suggestion the local police would vote for a member to sit in the local parliament,, the local trade unions would also vote for a person to represent them in the local parliament, local business owners would also vote for a representative, nurses, teachers, women, men, local religious groups, and so on.

The question is which groups are best to include. Still one person one vote. People can choose which issue they are most interested in being represented in, a local business leader might prefer to vote for a representative of men rather then a representative for local business.  In that sense people themselves would in the end decide which groups are actually selected and present by deciding where they want their vote to go.

[Jolly2]

As I think about this, seems clear the idea would entail certain areas to have  a fixed representation,  like the police,  or local business, areas that are very much the bedrock of the local area, then there would be a more public grouping where people decide to make groups to represent them.
I suppose there would need be a certain number of people wanting a representative for it to function properly.  2 people wanting a representative is a rediculas idea, so there would have to be some form of quota of people wanting a group to be represented to allow their nominee in the parliament. Of course how many is a question.

[puppypower]

Say a religious group, full of people who define themselves by this, want to be represented, but there is a separation of church and state taboo. Who decides who gets the "boot" , and who decides, which newly formed fringe group, are allowed to have representation? This will not allow the best representation for the most people. Would we need to boot the atheists, also, or should the deck remained stacked? To many people religion is more important than cross dressing, yet crossing dressing will get representation. We need to first fix the system.

Politics, Science and the Creation of Cerebral Memory.


In terms of politics and science, politics appeals to emotions, which is why lying often works in the short term, is complained about, but nothing ever changes. People of back to feed on the lies, again and again. Lying can benefit emotions but it harms reason, since lying fudges data so the wrong conclusions will be drawn. This path can appeal to vanity and emotion. In the end, the fact that politicians continue to lie show emotions dominate with reason showing its face, but half hidden and around a corner. 

When the brain creates memory, emotional tags from the core of the brain; limbic system, are added to sensory content when our memory is written to cerebral matter. Our memory has both content and emotional tagging. This is why our strongest memories have the strongest feelings attached; marriage, graduation, first child, first job, first kiss, etc. Even one's most exciting area of science, has emotional tagging; strong attraction and excitement. This is useful to the natural animal since if they encounter something that triggers memory, they will act on the triggered feeling without having to think. If the food item triggers the feeling of "good" from their memory, they will eat.

In terms of tagging our memory with emotional tags, there are only a limited number of emotions and emotional tags. Therefore the emotional tags are recycled and used for similar situations that express similar valence. For example, all our favorite food memories have the "taste good feeling " tag, even though each dish can be quite different in composition and content. One induced feeling can trigger a range of memories. If we get hungry at lunch, images of different foods may appear from which we may choose based on which take-out everyone uses.

On the other hand, the content side approach to our memory is very specific and tailored to each dish. Depending on how one approaches their memory; either the emotional tag side or content side, will determine how you will interpret the original stimulus. The emotional person will use the feeling tag side; variety of content, while the rational person will use the content side; very specific.

As an example, does anyone remember the collusion delusion hoax that was run. Very early on the lying politicians used this circumstance to induce fear and hate. It was only a matter of time before Hitler and Nuclear war would appear in the imagination of the boneheads, since these memories also have fear and hate tags. The perpetual fear induction from the hoax, expanded consciousness for parallel tagging until a cartoon reality was created. Even scientists got sucked in since they lacked the practicla knowledge and skills needed to control how their memory will be   induced.

The scientist, in their own field, tries to approach his/her memory from the content side, while trying to repress any induced emotions. The content side approach can still trigger the original attached feeling tag. If this tav was allowed to linger, it can then induce parallel content. This detour can side track and even confuse reason. The good rationalist will sense the emotional tag and then control the feeling induction, so they can go back to the content side. This is harder to do and is why most people default to emotional thinking. Emotional thinking is easier since it is often do to you and for you.

Emotional thinking is more common among the left than the right. The reason is the push toward feminization and presumed importance of feelings. One is supposed to think from what they feel and not reason it out, without feeling. This will trigger parallel content for confusion. This confusion allows the politicians to use the emotional tag inductions, which they know will cause parallel memory to appear to add even more confusion. Now the herd will need big brother to help focus the brain; give them what they think they need, based on parallel tagging, that will not bring that pinnacle feeling they desire. For example, cross dressors have more rights but they still have the highest suicide rates. Feelings with nebulous content name lead to an irrational path.

Now that you know how the memory works, it is the duty of science to point this out so people have more control over politicians and commercial feeling inductions. This does not occur mcc in culture, since most scientists appear to fall for the induction. Being called a scientist does not necessarily mean good at brain IT. They can get confused since they lack understanding on how the brain works. This results in them getting sucked in.

When I made fun of herd thinking, I was addressing emotional thinking, since the herd will be integrated from the emotional side. This is possible since all humans have the same emotional tagging resources. The individual is more based on the content side. This content is specific to your unique place in space and time. One needs the ability to deal in each situation alone which requires reason. You ill not have the herd to regulate what you do and tell you what to think to achieve the "faux" feeling of nirvana; parallel memory induction .

[Jolly2]

Say a religious group,

A religious group

full of people who define themselves by this, want to be represented, but there is a separation of church and state taboo.

Well there isnt not in Britain. If you had seen my thread on N Topia I'm trying to bring everything together.

Who decides who gets the "boot" , and who decides, which newly formed fringe group, are allowed to have representation?

As I suggested before it would be a question of having enough people, enough votes.

This will not allow the best representation for the most people.

They will choose a person to represent them directly so I think it will. Certianly better then now where you vote for one person who then represents corporate interests even over the interests of his or her own nation.

Would we need to boot the atheists, also, or should the deck remained stacked?

There is no stacking, aside from the people to represent local areas that are foundational like the police,  people would choose for themselves a group and vote for a representative of that group.

To many people religion is more important than cross dressing, yet crossing dressing will get representation. We need to first fix the system.

If there were enough cross dressers in an area to demand a representative I dont see the problem.

Politics, Science and the Creation of Cerebral Memory.


In terms of politics and science, politics appeals to emotions,

Simplistic

which is why lying often works in the short term, is complained about, but nothing ever changes.

Nothing ever changes because the system is there, to maintain the status quo nothing to do with emotion.

People of back to feed on the lies, again and again. Lying can benefit emotions but it harms reason, since lying fudges data so the wrong conclusions will be drawn.

We live in a world of conspiracies, being so dramatically reliant on data, could make anyone doing so, very easily manipulated.

This path can appeal to vanity and emotion. In the end, the fact that politicians continue to lie show emotions dominate with reason showing its face, but half hidden and around a corner. 

You think scientists dont? For the right price scientist will happy produce evidence to support a positions. As they did  previously with BIg Tabbcco and big Oil, as they still do with Big pharma.

When the brain creates memory, emotional tags from the core of the brain; limbic system, are added to sensory content when our memory is written to cerebral matter. Our memory has both content and emotional tagging. This is why our strongest memories have the strongest feelings attached; marriage, graduation, first child, first job, first kiss, etc.

Dont see it

Even one's most exciting area of science, has emotional tagging; strong attraction and excitement. This is useful to the natural animal since if they encounter something that triggers memory, they will act on the triggered feeling without having to think. If the food item triggers the feeling of "good" from their memory, they will eat.

Dont see that either

In terms of tagging our memory with emotional tags, there are only a limited number of emotions and emotional tags.

How do you know that? Dont see what any of this has to do with another form of representative democracy...

Therefore the emotional tags are recycled and used for similar situations that express similar valence. For example, all our favorite food memories have the "taste good feeling " tag, even though each dish can be quite different in composition and content. One induced feeling can trigger a range of memories. If we get hungry at lunch, images of different foods may appear from which we may choose based on which take-out everyone uses.

On the other hand, the content side approach to our memory is very specific and tailored to each dish. Depending on how one approaches their memory; either the emotional tag side or content side, will determine how you will interpret the original stimulus. The emotional person will use the feeling tag side; variety of content, while the rational person will use the content side; very specific.

As an example, does anyone remember the collusion delusion hoax that was run. Very early on the lying politicians used this circumstance to induce fear and hate. It was only a matter of time before Hitler and Nuclear war would appear in the imagination of the boneheads, since these memories also have fear and hate tags. The perpetual fear induction from the hoax, expanded consciousness for parallel tagging until a cartoon reality was created. Even scientists got sucked in since they lacked the practicla knowledge and skills needed to control how their memory will be   induced.

The scientist, in their own field, tries to approach his/her memory from the content side, while trying to repress any induced emotions. The content side approach can still trigger the original attached feeling tag. If this tav was allowed to linger,

What Tav?

it can then induce parallel content. This detour can side track and even confuse reason. The good rationalist will sense the emotional tag and then control the feeling induction, so they can go back to the content side. This is harder to do and is why most people default to emotional thinking. Emotional thinking is easier since it is often do to you and for you.

Emotional thinking is more common among the left than the right.

Nonsense if anything different emotions are in play.

The reason is the push toward feminization and presumed importance of feelings.

Right feminists are rational and men are irrational. Umm your drinking the cool aid.

One is supposed to think from what they feel and not reason it out, without feeling. This will trigger parallel content for confusion. This confusion allows the politicians to use the emotional tag inductions, which they know will cause parallel memory to appear to add even more confusion. Now the herd will need big brother to help focus the brain; give them what they think they need, based on parallel tagging, that will not bring that pinnacle feeling they desire. For example, cross dressors have more rights but they still have the highest suicide rates.

Maybe because rights isnt the issue

Feelings with nebulous content name lead to an irrational path.

Now that you know how the memory works, it is the duty of science to point this out so people have more control over politicians and commercial feeling inductions. This does not occur mcc in culture, since most scientists appear to fall for the induction. Being called a scientist does not necessarily mean good at brain IT. They can get confused since they lack understanding on how the brain works. This results in them getting sucked in.

When I made fun of herd thinking, I was addressing emotional thinking, since the herd will be integrated from the emotional side. This is possible since all humans have the same emotional tagging resources. The individual is more based on the content side. This content is specific to your unique place in space and time. One needs the ability to deal in each situation alone which requires reason. You ill not have the herd to regulate what you do and tell you what to think to achieve the "faux" feeling of nirvana; parallel memory induction .

If that's in anyway  an actual  thing,  why do you ramble Like this?

[Jolly2]

On consideration of political parties in a representative democracy. 

I suppose while many candidates could remain as now, independent.  Political parties could also field candidates for each representative group.