The Axon Terminal

5:00 AM

0

Q: Why fingers in human fists get folded in absence of neural stimuli?

Background: I noticed that the fingers in our fist tend to get folded in absence of neural stimuli. The same thing happens in case of our hands and legs. Question: What is the mechanism behind this phenomenon? Is there any positive or negative outcome of this phenomenon?

Seanny123

5:36 PM

30 minute count-down

I'm so excited and I just can't hide it

mfloren

:)

Robin Kramer

hiya guys

Seanny123

Hey Robin. Glad you could make it.

I talked to Dr. Borst and he's interested in working together, so that's exciting.

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 Ah cool, nice to hear that!

So groningen will be getting a Nengo expert soon?

Seanny123

5:53 PM

Depends on me graduating on time and Borst getting more money.

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 The former will be doable right?

@StevenJeuris We're starting in a minute. Are you there somewhere?

Seanny123

@RobinKramer should be very doable.

Steven Jeuris

Hi all!

Robin Kramer

Then let's hope Jelmer has practiced his pitch! :)

Hi Steven

Seanny123

Hey Steven.

Steven Jeuris

6:01 PM

@Seanny123 Congrats!

Seanny123

(it's very preliminary, but optimism is allowed if it's cautious, right?)

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 Definitely

So, I think it's smart to get down to business now, since our moderator is here

Steven Jeuris

Is everyone that wanted to attend here? (P.s. I'm in a bar, I'll be a tad bit slower than usual)

mfloren

Optimism is what keeps us going!

Seanny123

@YvetteColomb should be here?

Steven Jeuris

6:04 PM

Judging from the chat event list, we are only missing @YvetteColomb?

Seanny123

I know her time zone is a bit wonky

Robin Kramer

Let's wait for a couple of minutes then, but we can go through the plan of today

Steven Jeuris

I was planning to keep it short today, we talked business last meeting. Today is just making it happen.

The results of the poll were quite definitive I feel.

mfloren

agreed

Robin Kramer

Ideed (link for the curious: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2263/… )

So how does this go? You'll make the close vote and we have it, @StevenJeuris?

Steven Jeuris

6:07 PM

So, first topic for discussion. Any (minor) edits or concerns in regards to the top-voted new close reason?

mfloren

No strong feelings from me.

Seanny123

Are we going to link to an FAQ to elaborate on the close vote reason?

Is that just assumed?

Steven Jeuris

@RobinKramer Yup, that will be the immediate result of today (give or take minor adjustments). And then we will need to talk next steps: faq, tour, welcome message ...

mfloren

@Seanny123 I've been assuming this, but I suppose we should make it explicit

Also, do we want to add a help topic specifically regarding this close reason?

Robin Kramer

@StevenJeuris Only thing that I was thinking, should we give the OPs a Todo, such as "please show some intitial thought/research?" ?

Steven Jeuris

6:10 PM

@RobinKramer I feel this is implied by the close reason, and should be part of the new FAQ we should set up.

@Seanny123 So to answer Seanny's previous question. We should most definitely set up a new FAQ post, similar to the self-help close reason.

Robin Kramer

Will implicit be clear enough to new users (who will most likely receive this feedback)?

Seanny123

We can just append: "For more details see this FAQ"

Or "For more help see this FAQ"

Steven Jeuris

For reference, the current close reason I intend to create (verbatim) is: "This question is not framed within the cognitive sciences. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within the cognitive sciences."

We can add a "For more information ..." link. But as a starter, is this good enough?

Robin Kramer

I think so :)

Seanny123

Yeah, the starter is definitly good enough.

mfloren

6:14 PM

Mhm

Steven Jeuris

Maybe we should already create the faq post so I can already add the link. As part of this discussion I hope we can set up an initial FAQ post.

Any takers? ;p

As a meta question?

@Seanny123 Yup!

I'm on it.

@Seanny123 Great!

6:15 PM

@Seanny123 Awesome, thanks :)

mfloren

@Seanny123 Thank you!

Robin Kramer

Then I guess we can refine the text, if necessary, in the coming days/weeks?

Steven Jeuris

Certainly. Nothing we decide now is fixed.

Seanny123

0

Q: Why was my question closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"?

My question was closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"? What does this mean and what can I do to get it re-opened?

discussion

Robin Kramer

Okay, so we have our new close vote. Seanny is on the FAQ. What else do we need?

Steven Jeuris

6:18 PM

For reference, this is the 'self-help' meta post:

14

Q: Why was my self-help question closed as off-topic?

One of my questions was closed as Off-Topic. The comments said that: Questions about the behavior of an individual person are off-topic. If you are concerned about a potential medical issue, please seek the advice of a medical professional. What does this mean? Why was my question clos...

support faq closed-questions

I will quickly look up the exact 'self-help' close reason text to see how it refers to the FAQ.

""Questions about the behavior of an individual person are off-topic. If you are concerned about a potential medical issue, please seek the advice of a medical professional. For more information, see Why was my self-help question closed as off-topic?.""

So the new close vote reason will be: "This question is not framed within the cognitive sciences. It is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within the cognitive sciences. For more information, see Why was my question closed as “not framed in cognitive sciences”?.

mfloren

Looks good

Seanny123

Good. (:

Steven Jeuris

Too long by 26 characters. :)

Seanny123

Oh for love o fmuffins.

Steven Jeuris

Oh, n/m. Shorthand link might work.

mfloren

6:24 PM

gal darn

Robin Kramer

maybe scrap "are ot made explicit"

@StevenJeuris smart ;)

Steven Jeuris

"This reason needs another moderator's approval before going live on the site."

@AliceD

mfloren

Awesome! Thank you!

Robin Kramer

Wasn't AliceD offline for two week?

Seanny123

Alternatively can be made more brief by saying "It is assumption-based and not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within the cognitive sciences."

Steven Jeuris

6:25 PM

@JeromyAnglim Whenever you read this. ;p

Seanny123

Is Alex still one of our moderators?

Robin Kramer

cogsci.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators

Artem is the last one

Steven Jeuris

AliceD will be back Aug 15.

Seanny123

(oh jeez, I converted Artem to Alex)

Steven Jeuris

But I'm certain either Jeromy or @ArtemKaznatcheev will activate the new close reason before then.

Seanny123

6:27 PM

Okiedokes

Robin Kramer

Perfect!

And based on the Meta post, the Help-page will be made right?

Steven Jeuris

@RobinKramer Perhaps, as a starter a copy/paste could even work.

Seanny123

By "help-page" do you mean "FAQ"?

Steven Jeuris

I can tag that post as faq, just a second.

Seanny123

Like, the meta question and answer pair?

Robin Kramer

6:29 PM

No, I mea here: cogsci.stackexchange.com/help

Seanny123

Gotchya.

Robin Kramer

Awesome. Then I think we've got what we need right?

Steven Jeuris

The FAQ answer should be updated to provide more guidance.

And at this point it would be worthwhile to revisit the welcome message. Is it still accurate?

Seanny123

What is the welcome message?

mfloren

How can we see the welcome message?

here? cogsci.stackexchange.com/tour

Steven Jeuris

6:34 PM

And as Robin pointed out, we should go over these pages. Check whether they need to change.

@mfloren That's the one!

Robin Kramer

Regarding the "Don't ask about" on the welcome tour: I would propose the following

Steven Jeuris

Our current welcome message: "Cognitive Sciences is a question and answer site for researchers, academics, students, and enthusiasts needing expert answers to advanced questions in the "cognitive sciences": I.e., cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about cognitive sciences."

@mfloren That's the one!

Robin Kramer

Anything not directly related to cognitive sciences
__Question which are not well-motivated__
Questions that are primarily opinion-based
Questions seeking medical or professional advice
Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

The __ is the replacement for ""Self Help" questions which are personal in nature"

The welcome message is rather nice and concise right?

Seanny123

That welcome message is fine, but the "don't ask about needs to be changed" as @RobinKramer mentions.

Do we need to replace the "self-help" reason?

mfloren

How about something like: "questions you haven't spent some time looking into"? I feel "well motivated" can be cryptic

Seanny123

6:37 PM

I thought "self-help" was going to exist along with "not framed in cognitive sciences"

Steven Jeuris

@Seanny123 I believe the self-help reason still suits a very common purpose.

Seanny123

Or "unscientific"

Robin Kramer

@Seanny123 I thinnk it is covered by "Questions seeking medical or professional advice"

Seanny123

@RobinKramer maybe we should combine it with the medical/professional advice one?

Robin Kramer

Perhaps the following:

Anything not directly related to cognitive sciences
Question which are not well-motivated
Questions that are primarily opinion-based
Questions regarding the behavior of an individual (e.g. you)
Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

Steven Jeuris

6:38 PM

My original close vote reason post suggested the following:

- Pseudoscience or fiction
- Questions which do not clarify or reference underlying assumptions within the context of the cognitive sciences
- "Self Help" questions which are personal in nature, seeking medical or professional advice
- Questions that are primarily opinion-based
- Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

mfloren

yes: I may start this on meta later, but I think the focus on "behavior of an individual" as opposed to "self-help" is more broad (and more appropriate for many closed questions)

@StevenJeuris I like the addition of psuedoscience

Seanny123

I like the @StevenJeuris example

Robin Kramer

I would scrap "within the context of the cognitive sciences", it makes it a bit too long

mfloren

Agreed, though I like the wording of the beginning (not as cryptic as the "well-motivated" for me)

Robin Kramer

@mfloren I can live with that ;)

mfloren

6:41 PM

How about "Questions that do not provide relevant references or clarify underlying assumptions"?

Robin Kramer

Love it

Seanny123

+1 for brevity

Steven Jeuris

So ... I take mine but exchange line n.2 with mfloren's?

Seanny123

Yes.

Robin Kramer

uhu

mfloren

6:44 PM

Yes sir!

Steven Jeuris

Also ... we should probably create a meta post with this new list of 'off-topic' questions to open it up for discussion and change. I will do that.

Seanny123

And we can deliberate further about the "self help" warning phrasing later

mfloren

@Seanny123 Yes. :) I'm sure lots of folks will have an opinion about this.

well, some folks...

@StevenJeuris I can do this, if no one else is yet

Steven Jeuris

@mfloren That would be helpful. Thanks!

mfloren

actually, already made

here: cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/514/…

Steven Jeuris

6:47 PM

@mfloren For reference, it might be relevant to add the old list:

- Anything not directly related to cognitive sciences
- "Self Help" questions which are personal in nature
- Questions that are primarily opinion-based
- Questions seeking medical or professional advice
- Questions with too many possible answers or that would require an extremely long answer

mfloren

Ok, have to wait a few seconds before I can do the next "answer"

And its up! Linking to this conversation (for interested parties)

Steven Jeuris

Updated: cogsci.stackexchange.com/tour

mfloren

Awesome: looks good!

Robin Kramer

Might also be interesting to think about the example question again (cogsci.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2197/… ) but also for a later time

@StevenJeuris Awesome

Seanny123

legit

mfloren

6:51 PM

@RobinKramer Good point

Robin Kramer

If that is all then, I'll be leaving you guys now. Going to try and enjoy my evening a little bit. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion/improvements :)

Seanny123

Okiedokes. Until next time.

mfloren

Adios!

Robin Kramer

Bye!

mfloren

@StevenJeuris Is there a good way to get ahold of the close-vote wordings? Or do I have to find a post closed under them?

Steven Jeuris

6:55 PM

@RobinKramer Other time. Example question is really difficult to change. :)

@RobinKramer I do feel that is it!

Other discussion can be done on Meta!

Seanny123

I feel almost like example question restrictions should be changed

Steven Jeuris

@mfloren I just had to find a 'self-help' closed question to find the wording. :) Afraid not.

mfloren

Sad day. Alrighty, thank you!

Steven Jeuris

I do have an overview though, but seems mod-only.

Good meeting! thank you all for joining!

Seanny123

Thanks for holding the meeting

Steven Jeuris

6:58 PM

From now on (once one of the other mods approves the close reason), do not hesitate to start using the new close reason! :)

Looking forward to these changes!

mfloren

:) ditto! thanks guys!

AliceD

7:32 PM

@StevenJeuris et al., I haven't looked too closely at this due to me sitting on a camp site in Switzerland, but it looks good to me, mainly because of the apparent unanimous support it has received from the community.

Good work guys.

Yvette Colomb

9:10 PM

@StevenJeuris I'm so sorry - it was in the wee hours of the morning for me and I slept. I'll read through the transcript

Meta Cognition

9:52 PM

4

Q: Why was my question closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"?

My question was closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"? What does this mean and what can I do to get it re-opened?

support faq closed-questions

0

Q: Editing the "self-help" close reason wording

I have some concerns about the current wording of our "self-help" close reason. The current wording is thus: "Questions about the behavior of an individual person are off-topic. If you are concerned about a potential medical issue, please seek the advice of a medical professional. For more ...

discussion

Transcript for