The Axon Terminal

mfloren

19:00

Ah yes, the incest question...

Yvette Colomb

11

Q: Food sharing and mutual aid among the homeless

Since the time of Peter Kropotkin, it's been observed and theorized that cooperation and mutual aid are more common in austere environments. A classic biological example would be slime mold spore-making (Starssman & Queller, 2011), and anecdotal example would be people coming together to face a n...

this is on topic

Chris

Not that I have seen. I will have a look

Maybe cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/13126/…

Maybe not

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb great question, but not that good of an answer

Steven Jeuris

@Chris Hmm, well, this question would be closed as per our previous discussion, no? :)

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer yep not one reference

I think all answers should contain references

Chris

19:02

Yes @StevenJeuris

Robin Kramer

@Yvette I second that

Yvette Colomb

@Chris oh God and terrible answer. Anecdotal evidence

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb With the potential exception of terminology questions. (that do need a limited amount of context/googling, mind you)

Chris

cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/9165/… is sociology which is off-topic. It is about cultures etc.

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris yes I agree

mfloren

19:04

@Chris seconded

Robin Kramer

@Chris But sociology is about the behavior of people/cultures right? And behavior is pretty much the basis of CogSci/psychology

Yvette Colomb

@Chris well should we include these? Area51 has tried to launch sociology and anthropology sites and never gotten off the ground. We are in a position we can include them

Chris

Yes but this is not asking about behaviours. It is asking about cultures without hierarchy

Seanny123

Is obeying a hierarchy a behaviour?

Yvette Colomb

@Seanny123 yep

Robin Kramer

19:05

Well it is a verb Sean

Steven Jeuris

Okay, action point on this discussion, because I do not believe this is represented on Meta, could sombody raise the 'sociology on topic' thing on Meta?

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb Uhu. The only downside is when we have no expert users in sociology (apparently not many want to go online) it will be pressing our answer rate

Steven Jeuris

We should dig into this more in a dedicated post there.

Robin Kramer

good idea

Yvette Colomb

ok I'll do that now. Shall I include anthropology @StevenJeuris?

mfloren

19:06

@RobinKramer Thinking the same thing...

Seanny123

I just asked one about anthro cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2256/4397

Steven Jeuris

5

Q: Is social psychology on-topic?

I had a question about the Milgram Experiment which is a cornerstone of social psychology. I did a search and was surprised to find no previous questions on the topic. Hence, my question. Is social psychology on-topic?

discussion scope

Chris

Yes @Seanny123 but it is not asking about behaviours regarding hierarchy.

Steven Jeuris

8

Q: Is Sociology on topic?

This question, while not a good question for other reasons, is really more of a Sociology question than psychology. Is Sociology on topic here? It's been deemed a Cognitive Science by some definitions but it's much more high-level and localized than what our site has dealt with thus far. We've h...

discussion scope

Yvette Colomb

ah cool

Robin Kramer

19:07

Awesome, we'll discuss those two

Then I would like to raise the discussion of pseudoscience

2

Seanny123

Sounds good

mfloren

@StevenJeuris I like the answer to this...

Robin Kramer

Or in particular, Freudian like theories which were important in psychology but debunked by some others

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer oh God please no

Chris

lol @YvetteColomb

Yvette Colomb

19:08

@RobinKramer that's history of science, that's a little different

Robin Kramer

2

Q: Should we close questions about Freud?

Wikipedia has a list of topics considered pseudoscience that includes Psychoanalysis, Hypnotism, Myers-Briggs, and NLP (I would very much like to see Jung added to this list). Accordingly, I'd like to see such topics closed on cogsci.SE as pseudoscientific and outdated. This might be a bit cont...

discussion scope

some argue that Freud is not history, but still an active field (for therapy at least)

did i summarize that correctly @Chris

?

Chris

Yes @RobinKramer :-)

mfloren

hmm hypnosis as pseudoscience?

Chris

not just therapy, but within psychology as a whole

yes @mfloren

mfloren

:) ok

Chris

19:10

It cannot be tested

not fully

Same for NLP

mfloren

Hmm ok

Yvette Colomb

I've gone through and favourited all the meta posts linked in here

Robin Kramer

@Chris Which we also consider off-topic if I am correct?

mfloren

So: should we close topics listed as Pseudoscience by Wiki?

Chris

NLP is not generally accepted even in psychology from what I know but hypnosis is gaining interest

Yvette Colomb

19:11

I think theory that was the basis as a building block to current theory is relevant to the site

Arnon Weinberg

@RobinKramer Not entirely: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2132/removing-nlp-tag

Seanny123

(don't have an informed opinion on this, so I'm going to chill)

mfloren

@ArnonWeinberg I like your answer to this: give context, if it is allowed

Robin Kramer

I think it should be considered on-topic to ask how well accepted certain (pseudo)scientific theories are (so that it can be answered with current scientific evidence)

Chris

Hmmm within context NLP could be allowed as suggested but not generally

Yvette Colomb

19:13

1

A: Removing NLP tag

Currently, the "neuro-linguistic-prog" tag says: A controversial approach to psychotherapy that was popular in the 1970s, but has been largely debunked by science since. In line with Should we close questions about Freud?, I would like to see the following tags either removed, or modified...

Robin Kramer

11

Q: Is there anything in Freudian psychoanalytic theory that is scientifically sound?

I guess this question is quite context dependent, and here in Sweden there is a general movement for more evidence-based psychology. I think one of our biggest medical universities recently abandoned psychodynamics in favour of a more empirical approach to the field. In this general context it fe...

reference-request psychoanalysis

mfloren

I thought this question on hypnosis was interesting (a question that should have been closed for other reasons, though)

Robin Kramer

or cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/12451/…

Yvette Colomb

I don't think we should remove them, I think we need clear wiki guidance. It's fascinating to look at the history, we can't ban it. Because questions could be how theory has evolved. What do you think?

2

Robin Kramer

Sounds good

Chris

19:14

Plus how the theory is still being used

Steven Jeuris

@mfloren That should have been closed as too broad imho.

mfloren

So the questions have to focus on the theory?

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren ooh that's nigh impossible to answer definitively

Steven Jeuris

(I can do that now if we have 5 votes? :) )

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren yep

Robin Kramer

19:15

Yep, but what about cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/17705/…

@Chris

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Haha don't disagree

And not well referenced..

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer yep I think that type of question is good

@RobinKramer yep and that's off topic

Chris

As stated in my comment on that question and @ArnonWeinberg's recent meta post I think that it should have been allowed @RobinKramer

Oh, yes. not referenced

Robin Kramer

@Chris What would you have answered there (very briefly)?

Chris

:-)

Freudian theory is not the whole picture on this as there are other theories on this

Yvette Colomb

19:17

@StevenJeuris I've voted to close it as unclear "real hypnosis v.s. fake hypnosis" what does that even mean?

Robin Kramer

@Chris That would actually have been a good answer

Steven Jeuris

@Chris I agree with Chris on that question. It has perfect framing, but perhaps that could be made more explicit, rather than just through a tag.

Robin Kramer

I just don't like how the OP assumed Freud as the truth, because it is so controversial (or even debunked some may say)

Chris

I think though that as previously discussed it would have been closed for lack of research anyway

Steven Jeuris

@RobinKramer Exactly, so all it would need to be improved is an introductory sentence 'assuming Freudian theory ...'

Yvette Colomb

19:19

Freud had so many of his own issues and projected most of them onto women

mfloren

Asking the question a different way, where else could one go for clarification of Freudian theory (if it were banned here)?

Chris

I agree with the arguements on "penis envy" however in context it could be seen differently just like a lot of his writings

Robin Kramer

@mfloren Very good question

Steven Jeuris

@Chris The anxiety question? It at least points to a (web) reference and asks for clarification. In my opinion much better than the bulk we get.

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren exactly

Chris

19:21

as I have said a lot in answers, Freudian theory does have a lot of sexual reference which people get hung up on but it is not necessarily to be taken in that context entirely

Arnon Weinberg

@mfloren Where do questions on astrology go?

Chris

I think history @ArnonWeinberg

mfloren

The heavens, of course!

Yvette Colomb

@ArnonWeinberg is astrology relevant? except to examine people's belief in them

Chris

oh astrology

Robin Kramer

19:22

I'm starting to agree on Freud and stuff. We can debunk questions in the answer if necessary

Arnon Weinberg

@Chris If I ask a question like "Is this my lucky week for relationships?" on history.SE, I'm pretty sure it would be closed.

Robin Kramer

Here it would too (individual behavior)

Chris

I agree. I misread astrology for anthopology lol new glasses needed

mfloren

@ArnonWeinberg I know we don't have to take all kinds of questions, but Freud seems to be a big thing to ban

Steven Jeuris

Not to shut off this discussion (we can continue it on the relevant meta post) but we have a bigger scope topic to be discussed.

6

Q: We should be more welcoming to technical Neuroscience questions

Context: A recent neuroscience proposal got shot down as a duplicate of Cognitive Science. This proposal apparently was created by a group of experts: This was a concerted effort across multiple institutions established by top practitioners in the field to create a much needed venue to e...

discussion scope

This one caused a huge issue with a whole cohort of experts wanting to open a separate site, which was shut down by SE corporate.

Robin Kramer

19:23

Good one

Yvette Colomb

@Chris LOL

Robin Kramer

It should definitely be on-topic, but I hated that those people wanted it to be "just technical"

Seanny123

@StevenJeuris yeah, that was a dark moment in our history

Steven Jeuris

@ArnonWeinberg Another big example by the way we are scaring away experts. This was a collective of experts that didn't want anything to do with amateurish looking CogSci.

Yvette Colomb

there's room for them on the site. Look at Stack Overflow. No one can be expert in all the tags

Robin Kramer

19:25

Agree Yvette.

Arnon Weinberg

@StevenJeuris That is a good example. Are we sure that it was the questions that scared them away and not the answers?

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris I do think there problem was also scope. They only wanted to talked about electrodes and neurons and stuff, not about behavior

We included them, they didn't want to include us

Arnon Weinberg

@RobinKramer Yeah, or that. :-)

Yvette Colomb

@ArnonWeinberg well there has been grumblings from people over the years, so yes the low brow activity on the site does repel professionals

Chris

I must admit there does seem a bit of elitism to a degree with some people

Seanny123

19:26

@RobinKramer if they weren't talking about behaviour and only neuons, why didn't they go to Biology?

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb There is room for them, but they didn't want to be here because they didn't feel at home between the 'I noticed this yesterday' questions.

@ArnonWeinberg Both.

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris yep I understand

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris But these will be closed from now on

Given we have some agreement on the close vote

Yvette Colomb

site name?

Steven Jeuris

Agreed. In fact, we should make it an action point after the end of this month when we push through the new close reason and scope, to contact them and invite them again.

Yvette Colomb

19:28

@StevenJeuris who?

Seanny123

@RobinKramer add it to the scope summary?

Chris

Agreed @StevenJeuris

Seanny123

@YvetteColomb the neuroscience people

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 I will

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb The 'neuroscience proposal'-people.

Yvette Colomb

19:29

@StevenJeuris ah yes

Robin Kramer

I agree

Arnon Weinberg

@StevenJeuris OK.

Robin Kramer

Given we've been talking for 1.5 hour already, i think it is good to go to the next issue

Seanny123

Cool, as long as you've got a summary.

Yvette Colomb

yes

mfloren

19:30

mhm

Yvette Colomb

what's mhm?

Robin Kramer

Summary of this one: Socilogy, anthropology and pseudoscience are bordeline situations. Can be on-topic given some ifs and thens

Steven Jeuris

I believe we are on track. 30 more minutes to discuss site name, and attracting experts, and rounding up?

Seanny123

@YvetteColomb general agreement sound

Yvette Colomb

garbage collection?

Robin Kramer

19:31

Neuroscience questions definitely, but they didn't accept us. We hope to get them with better question quality

Chris

agreed

mfloren

@YvetteColomb uhu

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb Site name

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren mmhmm

Robin Kramer

My favorite topic :D

Seanny123

19:31

Like the summary, onto the site name!

Robin Kramer

At the moment there are two proposal for a change

Steven Jeuris

Okay. So 30 more minutes for site name, garbage valley. :) If time permits, attracting experts, but we can reconvene for that after the 31th as well.

Robin Kramer

1.: Psychological sciences --> psych.se

Or 2: Psychology --> psych.se also

Yvette Colomb

Psychology and Neuroscience

Robin Kramer

9

Q: Name change of CogSci - what about Psychology?

I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the posts on possible name changes, and many posts are interlinked and overlapping so I thought to write, yes, yet another post. The [pending] site's name [change] has been on my mind for quite a while. I may be off here, but my preference now (I voted for Mind & ...

discussion

@YvetteColomb This was not really possible. "And" in SE names are not that accepted anymmore

Chris

19:32

I agree with @YvetteColomb

Yvette Colomb

we will exclude the neuroscientists

@RobinKramer at all?

Arnon Weinberg

@RobinKramer Unix & Linux

Robin Kramer

9

Q: Name change of CogSci - what about Psychology?

I'm a bit overwhelmed with all the posts on possible name changes, and many posts are interlinked and overlapping so I thought to write, yes, yet another post. The [pending] site's name [change] has been on my mind for quite a while. I may be off here, but my preference now (I voted for Mind & ...

discussion

Steven Jeuris

As the other points, please take a short time to read the site name summary. :) (so I didn't write it for no reason ;p)

Yvette Colomb

if we choose Psychology we will not get the neuroscientists ever

Robin Kramer

19:34

I see neuroscience as a psychological study

To me it is entirely inclusive

moreover, if people visit us, they'll see it is on-topic

mfloren

@StevenJeuris :) thank you!

Chris

Yes, psychology has reference to neuroscience

mfloren

@RobinKramer But is it inclusive to them?

Robin Kramer

Quote from steven:

FYI: Psychology and Neuroscience was by far the top voted name so far (for the site as it is), but was not allowed because of the 'and' construct by 'upper management'. We could still opt for 'psychology' as a shortened name (for URL purposes), and have Psychology and Neuroscience as the full name. But then again, you have to keep in mind there are people that are pushing for a narrower focus than this ... site name and new focus for the site are (should be) very much related.

Seanny123

@RobinKramer I agree with you, but there's a lot of people that don't. The article "Neuroscience doesn't need behaviour" just went viral

2

Chris

19:35

hmmmmmm

Yvette Colomb

I dunno, when I was studying neuroscience, it was distinct from psychology

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 Oh wow

I did not know that

Chris

brain or mind as a short name?

Robin Kramer

@Chris Really dislike that. Doesn't show any implication of science

Steven Jeuris

@Chris I think I suggested something similar but this was really unpopular.

Robin Kramer

19:37

Then we'll definitely get self-help and mindfullness stuff

Steven Jeuris

... for similar reasons. ;p

Chris

I see your point @RobinKramer

Robin Kramer

there was this quote (which I cannot find this quickly) from Ooker: stating that a slightly misleading name is not that big of an issue

Seanny123

FYI, I'm still on board for psychological science, due to the reasons previously stated (neuroscience acceptance, emphasis on science)

Chris

I think then on balance that psychology is more inclusive seeing as neuroscience is not inclusive

Robin Kramer

19:38

Here it is: From what I knew during the early stage of Health, they fear not slightly misleading site name. My idea was that the site name Medical would attract more academic-level questions than Health, but their stance is that as long as the core members still actively filtering low quality posts, everything still be OK. After a while of inactivity, I see many front-page questions do have this level. [...].

from over here: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2217/11318

rereferenced to here: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2143/…

Steven Jeuris

What are other possible downsides of 'Psychology'?

mfloren

@Seanny123 Agreed

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris exclusion of neuroscience

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris I only see upsides, beside the neuroscience part

Yvette Colomb

Behavioural Sciences

Robin Kramer

19:39

People search for psychology, not for cognitive science

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer that's a big part

Chris

Although as stated in meta that psychology is generally pseudoscience, it still is scientific to a degree

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb that a synonym of Psychology haha

Quote from AliceD: Psychology has the '-logy' suffix, meaning 'the study of [the psyche]'. It also emphasizes the scientificness of this stack, as opposed to a source to post self-help (psychiatric) issues.

mfloren

@RobinKramer I think this is huge

Steven Jeuris

And is the general favor (in this room) for 'psychology' or 'psychological sciences'?

Robin Kramer

19:40

[T]he science of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious experience as well as thought. It is an academic discipline and a social science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer not entirely - sociology and anthropology come under that umbrella

@StevenJeuris I'd prefer Psychology and Neuroscience

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Not much preference currently (unless folks think one is more inclusive)

Yvette Colomb

short name can be psych

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb As per the quote posted by Robin, not likely to happen, but if this 'cogsci reboot' thing succeeds, I could try asking again.

Chris

@YvetteColomb Seconded

Yvette Colomb

19:42

Psychology and Neuroscience psych.se

@StevenJeuris I will beg

who did you talk to? @StevenJeuris

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb If accepted I am okay with that. But what if it is not? Would Psychology be acceptable?

Yvette Colomb

I'll have a chat with Tim post

Seanny123

@YvetteColomb begging is appreciated

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer maybe Psychological Sciences if you want to be more inclusive

@Seanny123 roger that

Steven Jeuris

@mfloren I think psychology has much better SEO than psychological sciences. On those grounds alone I would opt for 'psychology' over 'psychological sciences' .... if it is between those two.

mfloren

19:44

@YvetteColomb I'm also ok if accepted, but I think that Psychology is better than the current.

Yvette Colomb

They've tried to have a neuroscience site more that once

Chris

I agree with @StevenJeuris

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Fair enough!

Yvette Colomb

I love neuroscience lol

Seanny123

Looks like I'm in the minority with Robin, which is fine by me.

Majority rules!

Steven Jeuris

19:45

@YvetteColomb Shog9 probably or someone else of the SE elders, do not recall.

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris though the sciences helps SEO and psychology == psychological with SEO

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 Haha, I was starting to lean towards psychology also haha

Steven Jeuris

They also replied on our Meta directly I believe. (might be mistaken)

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris That was the tour question I think

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris If people want the and, I'm happy to pitch it to SE via email

Robin Kramer

19:46

And otherwise, we'll go for Psychology only?

Seanny123

Yep!

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb I believe they prefer moderators reaching out for that.

mfloren

Sounds fine to me

Robin Kramer

If i hear some Aye's, then we can move on to the next topic

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris sure

Chris

19:46

aye

mfloren

eye

Seanny123

aye, next topic

Yvette Colomb

aye

Steven Jeuris

The main thing we have to show is backing by a community, which was previously missing. If we can get a Meta post with 20 up votes for 'Psychology and Neurscience' we might try again.

2

Robin Kramer

Cool. Garbage Valley that is

mfloren

19:47

I think the new close vote reason will help with GV

Chris

i agree

Steven Jeuris

(which brings us back to the importance of topic 1 discussed, but indeed, onwards to garbage valley) ;p

Yvette Colomb

I'm a member of this room chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/41570/so-close-vote-reviewers

Robin Kramer

I agree also. But despite that, we do not close voters

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Have we confirmed that we want a new close vote?

Yvette Colomb

19:48

we have had concerted efforts to look at certain tags

@RobinKramer ?

Steven Jeuris

Yes, .. and maybe as part of the discussion for garbage valley (which is all about closing questions which are unanswered and unwanted) we should make the close reason concrete now.

Yvette Colomb

ok

mfloren

k

Steven Jeuris

The problem with garbage valley has been actually finding suitable close reasons before.

2

mfloren

and voters...?

Chris

19:49

that is definitely the problem I think @StevenJeuris

Steven Jeuris

Because there was no real consensus on what was welcome or not. If we make that more concrete, at least there is more concrete guidance (also for moderators) to act on.

Chris

Sometimes you can be sat there for a few minutes pondering the best close reason

Yvette Colomb

"This question does not meet the quality standards, and it is unlikely to receive a satisfying answer. The question shows no attempt of initial research and/or shows no relevance to CogSci.SE. Let the readers know at what level you expect an answer, and show them why they would want to answer it? The more context you provide, the better we'll be able to answer your question."

Robin Kramer

I think we should have the lack of context vote. It allows both well researched and popular questions

Yvette Colomb

Is this a little long winded?

mfloren

19:50

@Chris yes!

How about the one here: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2131/7943

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb I think so. It also excludes very popular (not well researched) questions

mfloren

"Insufficient context: This questions provides insufficient Cognitive Science specific context to be satisfyingly answered. Please modify your question according to this FAQ. Currently, the question shows no initial research and/or relevance to CogSci.SE."

2

Robin Kramer

@mfloren I'm with this one

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren yep I agree

Chris

I would go with that @mfloren

Seanny123

19:52

Yeah, we can move the elaboration into the FAQ @mfloren

Steven Jeuris

As to Yvette's, I prefer instant concrete feedback as opposed to the non-specific 'does not meet quality standards'. That is a given by the mere fact it is put on hold (might even be in the general message) and merely aggravates users. I would stick with very concrete guidance.

Yvette Colomb

I haven't been active on the site much, but I can make a commitment to go through the review queues daily

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris Is the one mflorens Quoted specific enough?

Steven Jeuris

@mfloren This begs the question what 'cognitive science' context is. Can we make that more clear?

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren oh and we need to remove Cognitive Science from the reason

Robin Kramer

19:53

@YvetteColomb good one!

Chris

I have been doing this and have raised this issue in meta cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2224/…

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb Only once we are allowed to change the site name.

Yvette Colomb

This question shows no research. Please provide a clear description and a citation of the theory you are discussing.

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb But then it ignores relevance/general interest, which I think we should include

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Sure. Fact/reference based (I would use this if someone quoted a blog as valid support), based on previous studies/research/theories.

Yvette Colomb

19:55

@RobinKramer but we wouldn't be closing it

Seanny123

Should we agree on a title first and then a close vote description?

Robin Kramer

Think the description will result in a title

Chris

Don't you think we should hold then close if no edit?

mfloren

Insufficient context?

Steven Jeuris

I still like the 'no initial research' one.

9

Q: Proposed Reason for Closure: No Initial Reseach

In chat, we've talked about how unformed, unsourced questions weaken the utility of CogSci.SE, and how requiring some initial research might improve the general level of questions coming from new users. I would love an off-topic option, and possibly text in Ask A Question, saying something along ...

feature-request close-reasons

Chris

19:56

yes. no official research

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris I think this may be the one

Chris

research needs to be referenced too. blogs with no references in my opinion is not enough

Yvette Colomb

I don't like this > This question gives no information about what steps the author has taken to answer the question on their own.

it's clumsy

Robin Kramer

This question provides insufficient motivation. It provides no information on why the author is asking the question, nor why others would be interested in it

That's the one from the upvoted answer

Arnon Weinberg

Just a reminder: We currently do not have this standard for answers, let alone questions. If we do not accept questions with no references, then we should certainly close all answers that don't.

Yvette Colomb

19:58

Can we have two custom reasons?

> Questions to validate an unsubstantiated hypothesis are off-topic. You either need to ground your hypothesis in scientific research, or ask for clarification on a specific scientific topic.

Chris

that excludes pseudosciences

mfloren

@ArnonWeinberg Agreed. Currently I do flag uncited answers...

Steven Jeuris

@Chris This is more of a matter to which degree we want to apply 'initial research' I guess something we should hash out on Meta. It is good though we have a consensus now 'no research' means closing the question.

Chris

Agreed @StevenJeuris

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris Well, not entirely

I would accept a popular question without too much research, but with a logical train of thought and relevance

So, boiling down to effort

Arnon Weinberg

20:00

@RobinKramer Me too.

mfloren

Honestly, I am fine with any close reason that includes (but is not limited to) closing questions that are not well referenced/cited/thought-out.

2

Yvette Colomb

9

Q: Striking a balance between citations and common sense in answers

Please bear with me. I am throwing up suggestions, before writing my final question below. I am addressing the way we can answer questions, based on citations, linking answer style with question style. Some answers require thorough research and well cited references. There are many more "generi...

discussion questions answers unanswered-questions

Steven Jeuris

@RobinKramer I see, but I do not feel I disagree there. Merely a different interpretation of 'initial research'. A logical train of thought, you see, requires some 'initial research' in my opinion. :)

Seanny123

Effort establishing context

Chris

Going to have to go unfortunately. Look forward to reading the summary of conversation

Yvette Colomb

20:01

That meta question makes it clear we require references

Steven Jeuris

@Chris Thank you so much for participating. This has been most fruitful!

Robin Kramer

@Chris Thanks for joining us! See you later!

mfloren

@Chris best!

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris Awesome, will work out the specifics :)

Chris

See you all later :-)

all the best

Yvette Colomb

20:01

@mfloren same

@Chris bye

mfloren

@RobinKramer But this can backfire with the "interesting theory I made in my garage"

People can put a lot of thought into those

Robin Kramer

So, summary of the close vote: We agree on lack of initial research. Research is defined broadly, also can be logical train of thought and relevance

Steven Jeuris

Yup ... and concrete proposals vor close reason names and descriptions can be mapped further on Meta.

mfloren

@RobinKramer I'm ok with this.

Robin Kramer

@mfloren that's true. But often the garage questions are based on indivudal behavior

Steven Jeuris

20:03

That leads us to the end. All of what was discussed now, although Robin volunteered to write this up in a summary, should ideally be made voteable on Meta.

Robin Kramer

Okay, and people belief that with this reason we can close old and new bad questions?

With enough manpower (5 votes per question)

Steven Jeuris

For those in different time zones and such, we still want to include those that could not make it to this discussion until the end of the month.

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer yes we can vote to close them

mfloren

@RobinKramer Yea

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris I stayed up all night for this, it's 6am

mfloren

20:04

@YvetteColomb Whew!

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb I know. Thank you. :) Your input was also immensely helpful.

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren ikr I wanted to make the effort

Seanny123

yep, I like the summary

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris Agree. Thanks :)

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris glad I could help.

Seanny123

20:05

and I really appreciate everyone's efforts today

2

Yvette Colomb

Thanks for all your input everyone, it was a great meeting, so collaborative and cooperative

Robin Kramer

It's best to leave things as is now. I think "attracting users/promotion" can be an issue for later on

mfloren

Mhm!

Yvette Colomb

@RobinKramer that's the hardest one of all!!

Steven Jeuris

Star power! So many stars!

mfloren

20:05

@RobinKramer Agreed. Maybe after some concerted cleaning efforts?

With our shiny new close reason?

Yvette Colomb

@mfloren LOLOL

Steven Jeuris

@YvetteColomb But one that builds on applying what we discussed now.

Yvette Colomb

@StevenJeuris true :)

I pledge to review daily and look at the new posts - both questions and answers

mfloren

Ditto

Robin Kramer

@YvetteColomb Awesome, thank you

mfloren

20:07

dailyish

Robin Kramer

I will too!

Steven Jeuris

Okay. I am also calling it a day. Thank you so much for showing up all of you!

mfloren

Best: thanks @StevenJeuris!

Yvette Colomb

bye all! Lovely to have such an awesome chat!

Robin Kramer

I think we can make some great steps with this!

2

@YvetteColomb Bye!

mfloren

20:07

@YvetteColomb Bye!

Yvette Colomb

\o

Steven Jeuris

@RobinKramer We will make great steps with this. ;p

mfloren

@RobinKramer are you doing the write up in meta?

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris You bet!

@mfloren I will tomorrow evening. Have some sleeping and working to do also ;)

Seanny123

Goodbye everyone. I'll check out the write-ups in meta. I'm going to do some stuff away from a keyboard for a bit.

mfloren

20:08

Sounds good, thanks again for doing that!

Bye!

Robin Kramer

See ya!

Meta Cognition

21:21

2

Q: What anthropology questions should be routed towards History.SE?

Both History.SE and CogSci.SE have anthropology tags. What makes an anthropology question relevant to CogSci.SE vs. History.SE vs. neither?

discussion

Transcript for