The Axon Terminal

alan2here

12:09 AM

See you guys later, hope that hypnoses effectivness thread stays.

Josh Gitlin

1:06 AM

@alan if you need something like that done and don't have rep, you can also flag, just fyi

Ben Brocka

4:05 AM

@JoshGitlin yeah I was wanting to discuss that. sometime on a weekday

digitaloday

hello

Steven Jeuris

1:29 PM

@casebash I would love to continue discussing this issue with you, but there is no need to start littering questions/answers with comments which should reside on meta. Care to join me on chat?

Ben Brocka

2:08 PM

@StevenJeuris Can't ping people that haven't joined chat. As a mod you can "superping" people that haven;t been in chat but I don't know how

you can move a comment thread into a chat channel if you feel it's necessary too

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka That was a superping.

@BenBrocka The important thing was I didn't want to continue the discussion in comments, it's fine for now.

Ubermensch

Hi!What's a superping?

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris Oh, figured they'd look different

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka More ... powerful? :)

Ben Brocka

@Ubermensch hello! Superping allows moderators to give a chat notification to someone even if they're not in chat, to invite the person into chat basically

@StevenJeuris more pingy, I suppose

I thought they had double @s

Steven Jeuris

2:14 PM

@BenBrocka To phrase them yes, but they are then simply replaced by the name visually.

Ubermensch

@BenBrocka Thank you. But what's the difference between a normal ping and a superping. Whether I have pinged you or superpinged you?

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka How do you feel on this meta topic? I've put some effort in trying to understand the question better, and as a matter of fact I don't feel it's 'too easy'. You could give an easy answer, but I'm certain that wouldn't answer his question, the problem I see it's not a real question, it hasn't been defined properly.

@Ubermensch To ping me, I'd have to be in chat. A superping also notifies you when you aren't in chat.

Ben Brocka

@Ubermensch Only mods can superping, normal users only ping people when they're in chat

Steven Jeuris

And haven't accessed the room before.

@BenBrocka You do get these notifications 'you're name has been mentioned in chat' as an ordinary user.

Josh Gitlin

Good morning everyone

@BenBrocka yeah weekends are bad for me. I'll be much more available now during the week!

Ben Brocka

2:18 PM

@StevenJeuris I don't feel it's too easy, but it's too vague and shows no attempt at research when it's pretty easy to look up, and it's commonly understood in the psychology community

Plus it was catching downvotes and closevotes, it obviously needs significant changes, even if I think the basis of the question is sorta okay

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka I might be a hero in writing 'possible' instead of 'possibly', but you're a hero in writing 'vauge' instead of 'vague'. ;p

Ben Brocka

When flying in the face of what's basically common knowledge (in the cog sci community) you need a well stated case

@StevenJeuris bleh

Why did the question close with "off topic" as the close reason? IS that because of the final/binding close vote or the most common one?

I assume mod close votes set the canonical close reason?

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka .. points at Josh.

Ben Brocka

lol

Steven Jeuris

I think it's best if I reopen it and close as NARQ, to settle that fact.

The OP was confused about that as well.

Josh Gitlin

2:22 PM

@BenBrocka I closed it ass "Off Topic" because when I came to it, it was 2 off topic, 1 NARQ

Ben Brocka

ah

I'd be careful with that close reason, as bad questions closed as off topic imply that the topic was bad, not the Q

Josh Gitlin

I don't know if I can change that... on second thought NARQ is a better fit

I'll be more careful about the specific close reason in the future

Ben Brocka

There is a good body of research on hypnotism so it's definitely not off topic, unless we want to call it a skeptics question

Steven Jeuris

One user voted as off-topic since they did that on another site.

Off-topic also meaning 'not suitable for the 'difficulty' scope of this site'.

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris That was my understanding

Steven Jeuris

2:28 PM

However, I don't agree with that reasoning. :) As Ben indicates, and I felt as well, I believe it sends out a wrong message.

There is some discussion on this on meta.

Josh Gitlin

Yes, I'm reading the discussion and formulating an answer

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris Yeah, NARQ seems to better fit "too easy" for me

Steven Jeuris

19 hours ago, by Artem Kaznatcheev

@StevenJeuris at cstheory we close below-level questions as off-topic, because the scope of the site was defined as research-level, so non-research level is outside the scope. A similar thing can be done for CogSci, if the scope is questions not answerable by an obvious wikipedia search, then a question that is answered by wikipedia would be not in scope and thus off-topic.

It wasn't on meta, it was on chat! This should probably be put on meta.

Also check out the subsequent conversation after that statement.

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris you can quote him on meta and link to the chat permalink

Steven Jeuris

@JoshGitlin Quite busy atm. I can phrase a meta question later this evening, but at work atm.

Josh Gitlin

2:35 PM

@StevenJeuris gotcha, I can do that also

Finsihing an answer to the reopen request

Steven Jeuris

@JoshGitlin Thanks!

I went ahead and closed it as NARQ instead. It was listed on the front page anyhow

Only unfortunate fact now is I'm the only one listed as closers. But the comment thread should make it clear that's not the case. :)

Josh Gitlin

Sorry, still writing an answer

0

A: Reopen request - Can an average person be involuntarily hypnotised?

I used my binding moderator vote to close this question. However, I did so when the question already had three other votes, so effectively I was casting two close votes. As I saw it, the question was likely to be closed without moderator intervention, I was just speeding that process along a litt...

Steven Jeuris

2:52 PM

@JoshGitlin Thanks. Very nice summary.

Josh Gitlin

Thank you!

Now I need to go AFK to make some business calls, but I will be back shortly!

Ben Brocka

So we're agreed that "off topic" shouldn't be used for "too basic" ?

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka From chat it seems like it, but if nobody else starts a meta topic about it today, I will this evening.

The only one I know that is against this so far is @ArtemKaznatcheev, because they adopt a different convention on cstheory.

Jeff apparently also closed as off-topic, but only after Artem did so.

Ben Brocka

0

Q: How should "Too Basic" questions be closed?

As per this post there's some confusion on what some close vote reasons mean. It was brought up that on CS Theory.SE, questions that are too basic fall outside of the scope since it is a site for advanced CS problems, not easy to look up stuff. My problem with "off topic" is that while "out of s...

Ben Brocka

3:15 PM

@StevenJeuris lol, did you reopen and close that Q just to fix the close reason?

Steven Jeuris

3:26 PM

@BenBrocka Yes, ... perhaps it might trigger him to continue updating the question. Off-topic would mean he can't. :) Might not have been necessary, but I find the discussion about it justified the action, even if it is just to calm down the OP.

"Also, the question was closed as off-topic. It seems, to me at least, be clearly within the realm of cognitive sciences."

Ben Brocka

yeah, closing questions is scary to newer users, and I Think that one in particularly seems very final

What's with the STack Exchange posting stuff that's immediately removed?

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka I removed it, since 4 lines up there is the same post. :)

But the message is automated.

Ben Brocka

3:50 PM

Check out these slick, designer web graphics!

Josh Gitlin

4:15 PM

I have 10 minutes between meetings in case anyone needs me

@BenBrocka this is a feed, you're a room owner, you can control that if you want. Just edit this room

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka rofl! :) do want!

I'm so drawn in!

Heading home, cya later.

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris catch you later!

heads into another meeting

alan2here

4:57 PM

Hello again all.

Josh Gitlin

5:26 PM

Hey @alan2here. I'm stuck in a meeting, so no chatter from me this morning :-p

Josh Gitlin

5:43 PM

and now I am headed to lunch!

Josh Gitlin

6:36 PM

@BenBrocka I vote either NARQ as you said, or "Not Constructive":

> This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

But I'll let some community members answer your question

We could also see if we can get access to "General Reference":

119

Q: Introduce a "general reference" close reason

There is a certain amount of questions that are absolutely trivial in nature: How to format a date, how to concatenate a string, et cetera. Questions that could be solved by taking a look into the manual. Random examples from the tags I frequent: php timestamp function needed http://stackoverf...

feature-request status-declined close-reasons general-reference

Steven Jeuris

@JoshGitlin I'd love that. :)

Like we can't handle one more close reason. It's all too complex! :) Actually I feel all complexities with closing questions usually arise from the limited amount of options.

Or .. as you say, NARQ and Not Constructive are very similar. You could merge those, and replace one of them by No Effort. I'm really all for that.

Might write up a meta post. :)

Josh Gitlin

"No Effort" lol

"General Reference" was used on how things work

until they basically closed that entire stack exchange site as "General Reference", lol

Steven Jeuris

That's what it is, in case you didn't read it: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/107999/157047 But general reference is all the same to me. Although you do have the problem something can be not general reference and still be no effort.

See the example in my meta post.

Dinner, ttyl.

alan2here

General reference is relative to how expert you are, and being an expert is not a boolean property.

Josh Gitlin

Enjoy it @steven!

@alan2here "General Reference" in stack exchange terms meant "You can google this and get the answer on the first or second page"

E.G. "The wikipedia page answers this question, it's not a good fit for Stack Exchange"

alan2here

6:45 PM

@JoshGitlin There are many cases where some people can Google and get a result in page one and others can't. Both of thease two example people are so some degree expert but one is more than the other.

Josh Gitlin

@alan2here I would argue, if it's not easily answerable in a google search it's not general reference

E.G. "What is dyslexia" -> general reference. My question, "What are the possible benefits of dyslexia" -> not general reference

3

Q: How have we been using the General Reference close reason?

I'm interested after reading the discussion Introduce a "General Reference" close reason on Meta Stack Overflow. What kinds of questions have been decided "General Reference"? Which have been accepted? Has the close reason generally been accepted or ignored by the community? Do you feel the clos...

discussion scope close-reasons general-reference

alan2here

@JoshGitlin I agree, and I would trust the asker as to if they maneged to find it in a Google search as a Google search is soo much easier than formulating a question.

@JoshGitlin Reguardless of how easy I found it personally to look up.

Josh Gitlin

Here's an example:

90

Q: Who or what was Tom Bombadil?

The most iconic of Middle-earth questions: Who or what was Tom Bombadil? Was he an elf? Was he akin to Gandalf, and one of the wizardly stock? Was he something… else?

middle-earth tolkien lord-of-the-rings

> This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information. See the FAQ.

So, not quite what I said

alan2here

@JoshGitlin That example wasn't what I was thinking about. I was refering more to the "general refrance" complaints here, where it clearly depends who you are as to how easy something is to look up. In that Tom Bombadil question it looks as if the main issue is that the asker is trying to start a descussion and is aware the question is either easy to answer or isn't something with an answer.

Josh Gitlin

Point taken, that's not the best example. Let me find a better one :-)

-1

Q: Why is jump-starting called that?

English is not my native language and I just don't get why jump starting a vehicle is called that. For comparison in Russian language (native to me) the same procedure is called the same word as one meaning "to give a light" (lighting a cigarette from another cigarette) and that makes some sense...

etymology usage

Man, English.SE closes a lot of questions as "General Reference"

1

Q: Let me pull up your account

Every time you call a customer service center they say: let me pull up your account, please. Is it correct to say that? Oxford dictionary explains pull up a little bit differently: pull up 1 (of a vehicle or its driver) come to a halt: he pulled up outside the cabin. 2 increase the altitude o...

idioms

3

Q: How is the title relevant to the content in "Streetcar Named Desire"?

How is streetcar a metaphor? And why is it relevant?

plays

> I've closed this as General Reference because the Wikipedia entry for the play contains the answer in the 2nd to last paragraph of the "Plot" section.

So basically, if the question is answered in other major, easily accessible sites is how I'm seeing the "General Reference" reason used @alan2here

alan2here

7:00 PM

@JoshGitlin tbh. I couldn't find the answer by doing a google search either, and even with unlike him English as being my first language and considering myself to have a large vocabulary and being good at grammer, if not spelling. It took me several reads to understand what this etymonline.com/index.php?term=jumpstart was on about, besides which who uses "etymonline.com" for general refrance.

@JoshGitlin Also, the close reason answered the question, admitedly in a confusing way, especially for the person asking. But still, thats rather good.

Josh Gitlin

@alan2here Seems to me like the English site is fairly heavy handed on the close votes :-/

I've felt that way for a while

This question of mine for example, once had "General Reference" close votes

alan2here

I think we are fairly heavy handed on down votes vs more helpfull comunity edits to the question, comments, etc...

Josh Gitlin

I'm clearly failing you in finding good examples of when the "General Reference" close reason should be used @alan :-) Let me ask around and see if I can find a better example

@alan2here Have you mentioned this on Meta?

alan2here

No, thanks for the idea.

Josh Gitlin

Sure. I was downvoting a lot more during the early days/private beta, in order to help keep things on track. I'm doing that much less now as a mod

The one thing I will say is it's extremely important to not get off track / get rid of bad questions. But There are two ways to get rid of them: closing, and editing. Which one we use is up to the community

Okay @alan2here, I have some better resources for you re: "General Reference". Here's Robert's description of it and here's Jeff's Blog entry about it

alan2here

7:10 PM

Steven Jeuris is here.

Josh Gitlin

I think he's eating dinner at the moment

alan2here

This is a perfect example: Steven Jeuris picks up on Casebash question about involuntarily hypnotism in the re-open request. His first point agaisn't the question is vaugeness, fair enough, except it's "• What's an 'average' person?".

Stack Exchange

0

Q: Misquoting articles

I was reading this article and was irritated by it. After some reflection, realized part of the annoyance was the hand-wavy attitude and vagueness. Infact this particular one doesn't mis-quote/over-generalize from any specific research study to make outrageous claim or suggestion, but some articl...

discussion

Ben Brocka

@JoshGitlin we don't have that clsoe reason, do we? I Think only SCi Fi and a couple others do

alan2here

-1

Q: Reopen request - Can an average person be involuntarily hypnotised?

This question was closed. I'd like to request for it to be reopened. I added a paragraph to explain why I don't consider it to be convincingly answered. This question was never convincingly answered. Of the two answers, one was a philosophical discussion of what involuntary means and the ot...

discussion

Josh Gitlin

7:14 PM

@BenBrocka We don't. I mentioned it existed on other sites, we're looking at how they use it in order to determine if we want to request to have it also.

Ben Brocka

Oh nvm, I just read the conversation

Josh Gitlin

No problem. Also are you Grace Note's sockpuppet? Because she told me we don't have that VTC reason at exactly the same moment :-)

alan2here

What's an 'average' person? - Involuntarily (forced?/narcotics?/unknowingly?)

If I ask "who is Stephen Fry" do I get the reply "This is too vauege, Fry is what context, as in to fry food?".

Josh Gitlin

@alan2here No, what you get is:

Stephen Fry

Stephen John Fry (born 24 August 1957) is an English actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet, comedian, television presenter, film director, and a director of Norwich City Football Club. After a troubled childhood and adolescence, during which he was expelled from a number of schools and eventually spent three months in prison for credit card fraud, he was able to secure a place at Queens' College, Cambridge, where he studied English Literature. He first came to public attention in the 1981 Cambridge Footlights Revue presentation "The Cellar Tapes", which also incl...

Therefore, it's too basic / general reference

@alan2here I'm not sure what you mean by this statement however ("What's an 'average' person? - Involuntarily ...")

Steven Jeuris

I've long dropped the idea that the question is 'general reference'.

alan2here

7:20 PM

I'm not saying that "Who is Stephen Fry" is a good question. I'm saying if I asked that in the chat for example somone might answer that he is learned and a commedian, or point me towards the article, or say it's a bit of a basic question and not answer. They wouldn't be confused about what context the word "fry" was being used it.

Steven Jeuris

I've attempted to formulate a proper answer myself and didn't succeed in a considerable amount of time. My main problem I was struggling with was with trying to understand what he actually was interested in. Hence, I stated it is NARQ.

Also, I related it to the very fact that skeptics had a varied set of answers. Why would the exact same question formulated here attract better answers?

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris I'm not saying it is, nor am I saying it isn't. I'm just trying to provide resources and information about how other sites handle the "How should we handle 'Too Basic' questions?" question

@alan2here Right, "Who is Steven Fry" is unambiguous.

Steven Jeuris

@JoshGitlin Thanks, it was actually a reply to @alan2here. ;p

alan2here

I could easily tell emeditly what the question was and didn't have any troubble with concepts such as "average person" or "Involuntarily", or that he's not specifiying a "hypnosis technique" because he obviously dosn't know with this sort of question, or that "setting" is not really relevent as with catogries of theroy.

Steven Jeuris

In that case, out of curiosity how did you interpret it? You could do a suggested edit on the question if you feel like you could improve it.

alan2here

7:26 PM

Is it possible to walk up to somone who dosn't know about hypnotism or what you'r doing, probbably just thinks you'r a little odd, and hypnotise them to cluck like a chicken, without there concent."

Thats not exactly as it's expressed but it's that sort of question, the question I gave above is explicit and can be easily infered by the question.

Ben Brocka

@alan2here I Think "average person" was totally unnecessary in the question and "involuntary" is reasonably well understood considering how much research on hypnosis has focused on whether it's voluntary or not

Steven Jeuris

0

Q: Misquoting articles

I was reading this article and was irritated by it. After some reflection, realized part of the annoyance was the hand-wavy attitude and vagueness. Infact this particular one doesn't mis-quote/over-generalize from any specific research study to make outrageous claim or suggestion, but some articl...

discussion

Did I interpret his question correctly? I might be a bit off due to language/formatting problems. :O

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris that would rather quickly become the largest single post on all of stack exchange if people actually added to it

alan2here

I'm not misquoting you Steven :¬P You were saying, which is the same as when I spent a whole day cleaning up my question, things like that "average person" is unclearly defined, look here.

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris to be honest... I had no idea what that question was about, lol. I was going to let some other community members... uh, "deal with it" :-)

alan2here

7:30 PM

here as in, in the close request

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka Agreed, wouldn't be the best example of a good 'poll' question. I was just wondering whether that was what he was trying to convey.

@alan2here Well for starters, I understood the subject starts out knowing he might be hypnotized. As he is requested to look into a spinning wheel.

Josh Gitlin

But maybe he doesn't

alan2here

The question is also greatly, "Hypnotism, does it actually work"

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here No, you weren't misquoting me. That was just the topic of a meta post I wanted to discuss, and in no way related to the ongoing discussion. ;p Sorry for the confusion.

Ben Brocka

It has been proven to "work", for certain definitions of "work"

With cooperation of the participant it's been shown to work

alan2here

7:33 PM

@StevenJeuris ok, thanks for tidying that up :)

@BenBrocka As has everything, what a superb answer.

@BenBrocka I'm not sure it always works with there participation, but I'm glad to hear it has been proven to be a real phanominon. Has it been proven not to work without there participation?

Josh Gitlin

Okay, I need to head to another appointment guys. I'll catch you all later!

Ben Brocka

Basically the consensus is that hypnosis works because you want/think it will work

You will yourself into being suggestive; you actually are much suggestive in that "state" (it's been questioned if it';s an actual mental state so I hesitate to use that work) but hypnosis is as effective as any magic trick; it requires some faith and suspension of disbelief

Artem Kaznatcheev

I am hoping we can agree that the following question:

0

Q: Classification of RT?

Hope this is the right place for this question: I have an experiment of two conditions & I have the reaction time (RT) for those two conditions (180 subjects and 500 RTs) the mean RT is significantly differ (t-test) between the two conditions. Now, I would like to construct a classifier wh...

learning computational-modeling

although about things that cognitive scientists might use, is not a good fit for cogsci.SE

and should be closed or migrated to stats.SE

please let me know if I am off-base

but I hope we don't start accepting general stats questions on cogsci

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here You could have gotten out of the Wikipedia article it was a proven phenomenon, at least I got that far. And that definitely wasn't the question from Casebash.

@ArtemKaznatcheev Let me check ...

Ben Brocka

7:53 PM

oh SVN, I hate you so much

Artem Kaznatcheev

I would really like @JeromyAnglim to comment on the above question, since he is both a practicing cognitive scientists and an expert statistician

Steven Jeuris

@ArtemKaznatcheev Agreed, it's off-topic.

Artem Kaznatcheev

err, by comment I mean comment on if he thinks it is on-topic or if it should be moved to stats

Steven Jeuris

Most likely better off at stats.

Artem Kaznatcheev

@StevenJeuris goodie, I was worried

Steven Jeuris

7:55 PM

I'm going to let the community close it though. I'll see what I can do about migrating the question.

Artem Kaznatcheev

migrating, you mean?

the weird thing is

that user

that asked the question

knows it is a stats question

Steven Jeuris

migrating yeah, where did you see 'merging'? I don't see it. ;p

Artem Kaznatcheev

he has 428 rep on ML.SE and 263 rep on stats.SE

@StevenJeuris haha, smooth editing

alan2here

@BenBrocka Thanks for this information.

0

Q: Newbe styled questions, accessibility and attitudes

I've noticed a trend here where people have issues with cirtain types of question, although I've been impressed by the dedication and generally good intents of those on the chat for sorting things out. Given our low question turnout and beta status of the site I think we should make an effort to ...

discussion

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here You mean 'newbie' right?

alan2here

8:07 PM

@StevenJeuris Thanks, corrected.

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here I'm fixing your post up a bit more. Care if I remove the "define average person, define involuntarily" part, as it seems to be the only part of your list which is an example. The others just convey general ideas.

Never mind. I made it E.g. define average person, define involuntarily instead. A bit clearer. You can check it out in a minute. :)

alan2here

Thanks.

Steven Jeuris

Sorry @BenBrocka, seems like my edit conquered yours. :)

At least if @alan2here doesn't want to roll it back.

Ben Brocka

Ick:

7

Q: Tag wikis need a size and functionality increase

The existing tag wikis are not enough. They can only store a very small volume of information, and given the complexity of the topics we're discussing here, that's just not enough. I propose to make them full wikis- that is, full community-edited sub-sites in their own right to host various refe...

feature-request tag-wiki

Basically "let's tape Wiki functionality onto SE"

Steven Jeuris

8:23 PM

I've always found tag wikis to be complex. As I understand it, we aren't allowed to copy paste wikipedia.

But basically, that's often a better thing to do. Perhaps Wikipedia and SO should work together, and tags should just link to wikipedia.

alan2here

@StevenJeuris Both edits are good.

Ben Brocka

Yeah, generally a link to wiki and a one liner description seem enough

The Scala wiki on SO is absurd, well put together but no one uses it

alan2here

I'm glad to get that off my chest, next time somone creativly misunderstands a question that a non expert would understand immediately I can point them there :¬P

Ben Brocka

I'm not convinced that's a bad thing either

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here What are you talking about?

alan2here

8:27 PM

"Newbie styled questions, accessibility and attitudes"

Steven Jeuris

All a tag wiki should do, is make sure you use the right tag. :) That's basically it right?

alan2here

@StevenJeuris Too many Stack Excange tags seem to lack descriptions.

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here Oh I see. That's the advantage of constructing one's thoughts into a well formulated post. You can just redirect people to it. :) That's why I started blogging.

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris that's certainly my opinion! God damn, trying to explain the whole topic is absurd

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka Where can I up vote? :)

Okay, already down voted the suggestion, and a few relevant comments, but I see you didn't leave a reply yet. :-(

alan2here

8:32 PM

We should auto assoceate them with Wictionary enteries optionally redirecting or adding additonal information where our meaning varies from the word iself in common usege. Without too much human legwork to make this happen.

Stack Exchange

0

Q: Newbie styled questions, accessibility and attitudes

I've noticed a trend here where people have issues with certain types of questions, although I've been impressed by the dedication and generally good intentions of those on the chat for sorting things out. Given our low question turnout and beta status of the site I think we should make an effort...

discussion

alan2here

@StackExchange Thanks, btw, who are you?

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris I left like 6 comments

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka Well, a few of them got up voted. But I mean there is no "Don't do this" answer. My fingers are tingling to do it myself.

But instead I should actually write up an answer to @alan2here.

:)

Ben Brocka

Also an ick answer that's not even a damn answer, yet gets all the upvotes:

11

A: Tag wikis need a size and functionality increase

Usually, when I want to find something on SO, I use [search ] textbox at top-right corner of browser. It's intuitive action. But it seems that SO search looks only in questions, not in tag wikis. I'm not sure if SO search engine can be easily modified to support tag wiki. So, for now, keeping ...

Steven Jeuris

8:35 PM

That should have been a comment yes. I liked it initially, but as you pointed out, that might not be that desirable.

alan2here

@BenBrocka This seens like a good idea but shouldn't it just refer directly to the wikipedia or wiktionary article where it's sufficent?

Steven Jeuris

@alan2here That's not the idea. :)

Ben Brocka

0

A: Tag wikis need a size and functionality increase

Tag Wikis define the tag for the purposes of the site, not the general topic. This topic was throughly covered in the blog post Redesigned Tags Page. Tag Wikis and exceprts are to teach people how and when to apply a tag. They are tag wikis, not topic wikis. Stack Exchange is a Question and Ans...

@alan2here nah, it's important to include how to use the tag, wikipedia won't tell you that

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka Great post. That prevents me from having to write my own. :) Thanks.

alan2here

@BenBrocka where it's not sufficent use additional how to use information as well, or even in some cases have it refer to a differnt wikipedia article that can be automaticly derived from the name.

Steven Jeuris

8:48 PM

@casebash If you want to discuss your question in chat, now is the time. There's three of us here of which one supports your cause. Hope to see you here.

Hope that isn't abusing superping, not too sure. :O

But I feel a short chat conversation might be more productive than the current meta discussion.

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris recursive links hurt

Steven Jeuris

Haha. :) It's like typing 'google' into google. (mandatory IT crowd reference)

Ben Brocka

no, it's more like typing recursion into google

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka true that!

alan2here

@BenBrocka lol, thats good.

Artem Kaznatcheev

9:08 PM

I just noticed a bunch of tag wiki comments in this tread

I did not read the whole thread

but I hope it isn't about my recent tag-wiki making behavior

is there a problem with the amount of information I am putting into tag wikis?

Steven Jeuris

@ArtemKaznatcheev Not at all. :) It's about this meta discussion.

Ben Brocka

Totally unrelated

Artem Kaznatcheev

Hokay, good

got scared

will carry on as usual, then

Ben Brocka

Though I've noticed you're stealing my chance to add tag wikis to all the first page tags :P

Artem Kaznatcheev

haha, I just have a little bit of free time right now while my brain works on other things

so I thought I'd make some tag wikis

mostly for my own sake

so that I get a better understanding of the scope of the site

since I seem to be confused about it at times

Steven Jeuris

9:13 PM

Hi @Casebash

Casebash

Hi

I don't really have much to add (I think I already covered everything comprehensively)

Steven Jeuris

@BenBrocka, @ArtemKaznatcheev, @alan2here, care to join us in this discussion?

Artem Kaznatcheev

about @Casebash questions?

Casebash

If anyone has any further questions though, I'll be here for about 5 min before i have to go to work

Steven Jeuris

@ArtemKaznatcheev Yes. I'm hoping we can communicate a bit more fluently like this.

Artem Kaznatcheev

9:15 PM

@Casebash should break his question down

into subquestions

and ask those

particular subquestions that will have particular scientific answers

Casebash

I've already given a super specific situation

Artem Kaznatcheev

your terms are vaguely defined

or misused

the last time I checked

Casebash

Let us assume that the situation is as follows. A man (or women) is willing to play along at the start by staring into a rotating wheel or by relaxing. He has no psychological issues nor does he have any special training to make him resistant to hypnotism. There is no requirement for him to be aware of when the hypnotism begins.

When he is given a command like "Cluck like a chicken" he will choose not to do so if he is able. If he is in a state where he performs the action either under compulsion (so he tries to resist, but cannot) or where he performs the action automatically without cons…

Okay, average isn't well defined, although it isn't critical. I could remove it if that would make it better

Regardless, it definitely doesn't need to be broken down

Artem Kaznatcheev

well, that was my only comments

if anyone else has other comments

they are welcome to make them

Stack Exchange

1

Q: What is the difference between [cognitive-psychology] and [cognition]?

Our most popular tag (24 questions) is cognitive-psychology which seems to be applied pretty widely. We also, have a relatively popular (7 questions) cognition tag. However, I don't understand the difference between the two tags. In particular, I feel like many of the questions tagged with one of...

discussion tags

Steven Jeuris

9:22 PM

In a skype talk atm, I'll be right with you.

@Casebash: I don't quite understand why you didn't attempt to reformulate your question yet taking into account all the comments. It might help your cause if you already incorporate many of your replies in one well organized question.

Casebash

I incorporated the definition of average into the question, but most of the other "issues" are just distractions

I don't want to have a question that is two pages long

But I am being pushed that way by all these claims of ambiguity

8

Q: Common Sense: incompatible with skepticism?

I find this problem reoccurring in many skepticism-based (or just skepticism-flavored) web forums or generally, any discussions. In the most basic (and most annoying) form, it goes like this. Someone says something, or asks something, and then they are required to define the words they used. One ...

discussion

The original question actually got brought up in a meta post on Skeptics. I think its an interesting discussion

Anyway, I have to go now. Thanks for chatting

Steven Jeuris

Sorry I was afk a bit. Still am. :/ Bad timing (again). But one last note, by reformatting I mean entirely rephrase it.

copy paste relevant statements out of wikipedia

out of answers on the existing answers on skeptics

Relate to those specifically. I'm looking for a meta post on how to phrase proper questions, but can't seem to find it immediately.

But the basic structure is like this "This is my question/This is what I found/This is what I tried/I'm concerned with these aspects specifically"

If that would become too large a question, split it into separate questions as Artem suggested.

Especially, prevent from 'assuming' things (which can either be implied or by not defining stuff) and continuing phrasing a question upon that.

@Casebash Does that make sense?

@ArtemKaznatcheev Any reason why your excerpt is always the same as the actual wiki? I actually don't have a clue what the convention on this is.

Artem Kaznatcheev

9:49 PM

Well, I only really want to make the experts, since they are the important part

the part that people actually see when they are tagging

the longer wiki I don't think anybody ever reads

so I have just been making it concise as well

but if you guys really want I can make the non-exert more detailed... I just don't think it will help that much

Steven Jeuris

@ArtemKaznatcheev It doesn't have to be detailed for me no. Just wondering. Like I said, I don't know about the conventions. I'll just approve, we can still edit it later. Thanks for all the wikis!

Artem Kaznatcheev

no problemo, I am trying to clean up/learn the tagging on this site

should I ask meta questions about all retagging?

because some seems very obvious

and I don't want spam the meta

Steven Jeuris

It's not spamming, it's cleaning up. Go ahead!

Artem Kaznatcheev

like, we have language, linguistics, and psycholinguistics

Steven Jeuris

The thing is I can't give a final vote on those issues. I don't know enough about the subjects, so by all means. Leave posts about this on meta so I can check out the up votes as an indication how right you are. ;p

Artem Kaznatcheev

9:53 PM

it is pretty obvious that ling (2 questions) and psychling (1 question) should be retagged language (6 questions)

Steven Jeuris

Jeromy can push the changes through as well, I'm really glad we have at least one expert mod. :)

If you leave it on meta I'm sure he'll check them out as well.

Artem Kaznatcheev

I guess, but it will take up his time.

Hmmm

this is what chat is useful for, by unfortunately Jeromy is in a totally different timezone

Steven Jeuris

Starred it, might look at it properly later.

Even still, it raises the discussion how to handle the removal of the tag. Do you want tag synonyms?

Artem Kaznatcheev

psycholinguistics should be axed, I think

(obviously any question on this site is about psycholinguitics)

(no reason to carry around the psycho part)

but ling being a synonym for language MIGHT be a good idea... but might also be a bad idea

since technically linguistics is broader... just the 2 questions that have the ling tag don't need it

@BenBrocka re: meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/182/29 are you okay with my proceeding as in my last comment?

@StevenJeuris I axed the only psycholinguistics question by re-tagging it as linguistics. I will ask on meta what we want to do about language vs. linguistics

Steven Jeuris

@ArtemKaznatcheev Thanks.

Ben Brocka

10:04 PM

@Casebash I Think a good part of that is a load of crap and not "common sense". "instantly" needs to be defined for one to give scientific (or any) evidence to support or refute such a thing.

@Casebash in the specific case of your question I think including "average person" was unnecessary, generally speaking all research is done on "typical" people and any answers pointing to certain, atypical groups of people who can be hypnotized will certainly specify that they're not typical people. Including "average person" is just asking for trouble in a scientific context

Josh Gitlin

Wow, lots of chat while I was goon, that's great!

Ben Brocka

lots of discussion over the closed hypnosis question

Josh Gitlin

@BenBrocka Any new consensus?

I'll read the backlog in a moment, have some work things to address first

Ben Brocka

not really

Steven Jeuris

10:22 PM

We had cashbash in here, but unfortunately everybody seemed quite busy at that time.

Josh Gitlin

Yeah, sorry I had to jet guys

Although, I'm really looking for a consensus from the community

Ben Brocka

A couple people seemed upset with closing of questions that were using "common sense wording" but I don't find the definitions to be proper common sense

as per this question:

8

Q: Common Sense: incompatible with skepticism?

I find this problem reoccurring in many skepticism-based (or just skepticism-flavored) web forums or generally, any discussions. In the most basic (and most annoying) form, it goes like this. Someone says something, or asks something, and then they are required to define the words they used. One ...

discussion

Josh Gitlin

> Define "common sense". – Shog9♦ Apr 1 '11 at 14:28

That sums it up pretty well @Ben :-)

Ben Brocka

Pretty much

Both examples the Q brought were terrible

You have to define UFO or instant death\

Josh Gitlin

Yeah. My opinion is "common sense wording" is too much of a gray area. There must be a better way to identify what the problem is

Ben Brocka

10:35 PM

And it's not extremely difficult to give a valid definition either

Just compare "Is there evidence that alien or non-human spacecraft have been seen" vs "Are UFOs real"

Of course UFOs are real, plenty of people see things, flying, that they can't identify

It all just seems like masking of bad questions by saying "it's common sense"

Steven Jeuris

@JoshGitlin I stick to bad formatting for starters. As you pointed out, one line "I asked this on ..." followed by a block quote to a question which apparently didn't get suitable answers.

A subsequent edit which only merely addresses raised issues, pasted at the bottom of the question as it being unimportant.

Josh Gitlin

@BenBrocka Right. Ambiguity seems to be the problem here

Ben Brocka

IMO there just wasn't a direct enough question. Was I supposed to answer the skeptics question? In that case, ask the specific question directly as if posted before cognitive scientists

Josh Gitlin

"Are UFOs Real" could mean "Do people see flying objects they cannot identify?" or "Do aliens exist?"

Ben Brocka

To me it all just seems like asking a bunch of statisticians"what's the average salary in the US?"

Josh Gitlin

10:40 PM

@StevenJeuris Yeah. And mass downvotes. The question was going nowhere as-is, closing stops the bleeding so to speak

Ben Brocka

If you weren't expecting the immediate call to define "average" you don't understand your audience well enough to critically evaluate their input anyway

Josh Gitlin

@BenBrocka this is why I don't use Skeptics.SE ;-)

Ben Brocka

It does seem like a site where the asker and the answerers are at odds on more than one level

Steven Jeuris

"Everybody knows what the common definition of 'hypnotized' is." ... haha :)

I suspect stage hypnosis in that case? :)

"Sometimes it's hard to find words to define something, even if you know what you mean very clearly." ... Oh god, this is terrible.

Josh Gitlin

Yeah, the common definition for "hypnotized" is "You're getting sleeeeeeeeeeepppppppppppyyyyyyy"

Steven Jeuris

10:46 PM

I know perfectly well what I'm asking, .... I just can't! :)

Ben Brocka

*Ben used Hypnosis!*
*The enemy's Pikachu fell asleep!*

Josh Gitlin

:-p

Steven Jeuris

It's a pity though. Looks like that user wrote some proper questions as well. Didn't read through them, but saw up voted questions with answers.

Ben Brocka

Suddenly tempted to ask a question on the effects of Dream Eater

Steven Jeuris

I wonder where the problem lies that he can't see his question needs serious improvements.

Ben Brocka

10:47 PM

Dunno

Steven Jeuris

... this is even more hilarious ... "It can be a flame bait, a start of a useless debate of what the real definition of x is, drawing attention away from the question. Happens in forums like, about everytime." .... Isn't that what you prevent by specifying what you are implying?

.. Damn, I don't have enough rep to down vote.

Ben Brocka

@StevenJeuris lol. I found that out too :D

Josh Gitlin

This was not the answer I wanted, LOL

Steven Jeuris

Hey did you up vote red Schroedingers Cat?

Ben Brocka

There's more than one schroedinger's cat now?

Good lord, they're multiplying (possibly)

Josh Gitlin

10:57 PM

hahaha, I hope there's only one

Ben Brocka

Fractal schroedingers cats. Imagine the logical horros

Steven Jeuris

Don't know how 'red' got in there. I guess part of the copy paste. :)

No seriously, I was considering somehow turning his answer into a comment if it would fit.

0

A: Is there evidence that listening to music can aid/hinder concentration or performance?

I realise this is anecdotal, but the answer to this does vary between people. My wife likes to have nothing to listen to while studying or concentrating. I like to have the TV on normally, or Chill Radio, whereas by youngest son has metal music on - not what most people would consider conducive t...

Figured I could already down vote, but seems like somebody up voted again.

Josh Gitlin

@StevenJeuris I... um... might have... I might not have. You're asking because it should be a comment, I see

Ben Brocka

yeah I thought that about a couple posts

Josh Gitlin

It's too long for a comment...

I think it is anyway

Transcript for