« first day (2021 days earlier)      last day (1633 days later) » 

5:00 AM
0
Q: Why fingers in human fists get folded in absence of neural stimuli?

MockingbirdBackground: 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?

 
 
13 hours later…
5:36 PM
30 minute count-down
I'm so excited and I just can't hide it
 
:)
 
hiya guys
 
Hey Robin. Glad you could make it.
I talked to Dr. Borst and he's interested in working together, so that's exciting.
 
@Seanny123 Ah cool, nice to hear that!
So groningen will be getting a Nengo expert soon?
 
5:53 PM
Depends on me graduating on time and Borst getting more money.
 
@Seanny123 The former will be doable right?
@StevenJeuris We're starting in a minute. Are you there somewhere?
 
@RobinKramer should be very doable.
 
Hi all!
 
Then let's hope Jelmer has practiced his pitch! :)
Hi Steven
 
Hey Steven.
 
6:01 PM
@Seanny123 Congrats!
 
(it's very preliminary, but optimism is allowed if it's cautious, right?)
 
@Seanny123 Definitely
So, I think it's smart to get down to business now, since our moderator is here
 
Is everyone that wanted to attend here? (P.s. I'm in a bar, I'll be a tad bit slower than usual)
 
Optimism is what keeps us going!
 
@YvetteColomb should be here?
 
6:04 PM
Judging from the chat event list, we are only missing @YvetteColomb?
 
I know her time zone is a bit wonky
 
Let's wait for a couple of minutes then, but we can go through the plan of today
 
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.
 
agreed
 
So how does this go? You'll make the close vote and we have it, @StevenJeuris?
 
6:07 PM
So, first topic for discussion. Any (minor) edits or concerns in regards to the top-voted new close reason?
 
No strong feelings from me.
 
Are we going to link to an FAQ to elaborate on the close vote reason?
Is that just assumed?
 
@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 ...
 
@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?
 
@StevenJeuris Only thing that I was thinking, should we give the OPs a Todo, such as "please show some intitial thought/research?" ?
 
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.
 
Will implicit be clear enough to new users (who will most likely receive this feedback)?
 
We can just append: "For more details see this FAQ"
Or "For more help see this FAQ"
 
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?
 
I think so :)
 
Yeah, the starter is definitly good enough.
 
6:14 PM
Mhm
 
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 :)
 
@Seanny123 Thank you!
 
Then I guess we can refine the text, if necessary, in the coming days/weeks?
 
Certainly. Nothing we decide now is fixed.
 
0
Q: Why was my question closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"?

Seanny123My question was closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"? What does this mean and what can I do to get it re-opened?

 
Okay, so we have our new close vote. Seanny is on the FAQ. What else do we need?
 
6:18 PM
For reference, this is the 'self-help' meta post:
14
Q: Why was my self-help question closed as off-topic?

JoshOne 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...

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”?.
 
Looks good
 
Good. (:
 
Too long by 26 characters. :)
 
Oh for love o fmuffins.
 
Oh, n/m. Shorthand link might work.
 
6:24 PM
gal darn
 
maybe scrap "are ot made explicit"
@StevenJeuris smart ;)
 
"This reason needs another moderator's approval before going live on the site."
@AliceD
 
Awesome! Thank you!
 
Wasn't AliceD offline for two week?
 
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."
 
6:25 PM
@JeromyAnglim Whenever you read this. ;p
 
Is Alex still one of our moderators?
 
AliceD will be back Aug 15.
 
(oh jeez, I converted Artem to Alex)
 
But I'm certain either Jeromy or @ArtemKaznatcheev will activate the new close reason before then.
 
6:27 PM
Okiedokes
 
Perfect!
And based on the Meta post, the Help-page will be made right?
 
@RobinKramer Perhaps, as a starter a copy/paste could even work.
 
By "help-page" do you mean "FAQ"?
 
I can tag that post as faq, just a second.
 
Like, the meta question and answer pair?
 
6:29 PM
 
Gotchya.
 
Awesome. Then I think we've got what we need right?
 
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?
 
What is the welcome message?
 
How can we see the welcome message?
 
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!
 
Regarding the "Don't ask about" on the welcome tour: I would propose the following
 
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!
 
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?
 
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?
 
How about something like: "questions you haven't spent some time looking into"? I feel "well motivated" can be cryptic
 
6:37 PM
I thought "self-help" was going to exist along with "not framed in cognitive sciences"
 
@Seanny123 I believe the self-help reason still suits a very common purpose.
 
Or "unscientific"
 
@Seanny123 I thinnk it is covered by "Questions seeking medical or professional advice"
 
@RobinKramer maybe we should combine it with the medical/professional advice one?
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
I like the @StevenJeuris example
 
I would scrap "within the context of the cognitive sciences", it makes it a bit too long
 
Agreed, though I like the wording of the beginning (not as cryptic as the "well-motivated" for me)
 
@mfloren I can live with that ;)
 
6:41 PM
How about "Questions that do not provide relevant references or clarify underlying assumptions"?
 
Love it
 
+1 for brevity
 
So ... I take mine but exchange line n.2 with mfloren's?
 
Yes.
 
6:44 PM
Yes sir!
 
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.
 
And we can deliberate further about the "self help" warning phrasing later
 
@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
 
@mfloren That would be helpful. Thanks!
 
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
 
Ok, have to wait a few seconds before I can do the next "answer"
And its up! Linking to this conversation (for interested parties)
 
Awesome: looks good!
 
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
 
legit
 
6:51 PM
@RobinKramer Good point
 
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 :)
 
Okiedokes. Until next time.
 
Adios!
 
Bye!
 
@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?
 
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!
 
I feel almost like example question restrictions should be changed
 
@mfloren I just had to find a 'self-help' closed question to find the wording. :) Afraid not.
 
Sad day. Alrighty, thank you!
 
I do have an overview though, but seems mod-only.
Good meeting! thank you all for joining!
 
Thanks for holding the meeting
 
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!
 
:) ditto! thanks guys!
 
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.
 
 
2 hours later…
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
 
9:52 PM
4
Q: Why was my question closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"?

Seanny123My question was closed as "not framed in cognitive sciences"? What does this mean and what can I do to get it re-opened?

0
Q: Editing the "self-help" close reason wording

mflorenI 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 ...

 

« first day (2021 days earlier)      last day (1633 days later) »