« first day (217 days earlier)      last day (4261 days later) » 

4:56 AM
Computational Neuroscience

Proposed Q&A site for those who use computer models to better understand and predict the behavior of real networks of neurons. It is distinct from although related to the Computational Science and Neuroscience proposals.

Currently in definition.

> Your questions will likely already be on topic at Cognitive Sciences. – jonsca 3 mins ago
8 hours later…
1:28 PM
@jonsca ** facepalm **
I invited the guy to chat
1:58 PM
Attention! drum rolls and pipes
Mate calls out 'Colonel enters the ship'
Colonel Mustard enters the ship.
Gentlemen, remain seated, please, Ladies, feel free to faint.
Oh hey it's Mr. Munster
Oh hey, it's the Brocka Area.
@H.Muster oh yeah I've heard that one before :P
@BenBrocka Yep, I guessed so. Plagiarism is one of my favorite hobbies.
2:07 PM
Q: What are the usability benefits of using multiple monitors?

dhmholleyI've read a lot of articles suggesting that work patterns are more effective when using more than one monitor. But why is that the case, from an HCI perspective? And as follow-up questions, are there any serious downsides to using multiple monitors, and (presuming they do increase usability over...

Fun question for the human computer interaction inclined
Q: Our site description should be changed to match our new welcome message

Josh GitlinWe asked for and we received a new welcome message for our site: This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. ...so, that's been done. If you think the description sho...

@JoshGitlin Yay!
I was chastised by the team for the system message... won't be doing that again
(EVen though it worked great and was pretty much the single bigest factor in getting the change made...)
@JoshGitlin I read that. Aarthi calling you 'dude' ... uncool.
@JoshGitlin Our martyr! faints :D
2:13 PM
haha, yeah, somehow that added extra oomph to her statement :-)
@H.Muster Hey! I'm no martyr yet, I still have my diamond! ;-)
2:28 PM
I actually requested my diamond removed at one point and still have it.
Weird people our overlords.
@JoshGitlin Yeah, I meant to warn you about that actually, whoops. Probably would have been alright to use the community bulletin though, or at least the Stack Overflow moderators appear to have hijacked it for meta-drawing attention without much issue.
@TimStone it had been used for it (twice) to little avail
@TimStone you know about chat feeds, right? Is there a way to make a feed for trello cards?
I don't think so, because Trello doesn't have any RSS feed.
(or, at least last I heard it doesn't, I don't use it personally)
2:40 PM
apparently not, lame
it'd be nice to have for the blog room
2:59 PM
Q: Our site description should be changed to match our new welcome message

Josh GitlinWe asked for and we received a new welcome message for our site: This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. I believe our description should also be changed everywhe...

3:23 PM
@TimStone It was actually listed there also...
But as @Ben said, nobody paid attention
Aarthi said I'm OK as long as I don't do it again, lol
Well, your community bulletin already has a number of items in it, so noticing new ones isn't easy.
I was aware that on some sites users get all bent out of shape about system messages, I just thought it was kinda a per-site thing not a network-wide thing
So that's not surprising, unfortunately.
@TimStone I'll should work on cleaning that up
Yeah, no, heh :P
@JoshGitlin Well, it's more of an implementation issue I think
3:25 PM
Well I can remove from some meta posts
@TimStone unlike SO, per site meta topics automatically end up in there on other sites
Also, my sense of urgency about growing the site's users has been somewhat subdued by the team. They're not unhappy with our stats, we're not in eminent danger as I feared we might be.
I don't want us to lose any momentum! But...
My sense of urgency for a name change has been lessened
If we can continue to grow (albeit slowly) we'll get more meta users eventually, and more consensus on names that way
I'm also thinking of other ways to encourage meta participation. May ask on MSO
Free e-bagels for meta questions
3:32 PM
or free unicorn bucks!
3:43 PM
@jonsca @ArtemKaznatcheev @BenBrocka @TimStone and anyone else: Are any of you seriously interested in forming a team to compete in the Machine Learning challenge? If so, I'm interested although I'm not sure if I have anything to add. Ping me and we'll talk details if anyone does want to explore this
Not me, know nothing of ML
Yeah I don't know anything about ML but I'd like to learn!
4:11 PM
@JoshGitlin Which contest?
@BenBrocka They plan to introduce a “mandated choice” in Germany soon.
This might raise the number of potential donors.
hopefully. That's pretty sad participation. But it says more about how likely people are to leave defaults on
@BenBrocka We just do not have to state a preference. Only if you want to be a donor, you'll have to act and get a document.
Thus, most of us (including me) aren't non-donors, but just non-doers.
And yes, that's sad.
4:38 PM
@H.Muster wait seriously? There's paperwork involved?
They ask us a question and it's a checkbox on your driver's license
Furthermore, unfortunately we had (or still have) a large scandal concerning organ transplantations. Doctors were selling places on organ-waiting-lists. This will not help either.
@BenBrocka You have to download a form, print it, fill it and put it in your wallet. That's it, if I am not mistaken.
Seriously? Good lord
It takes 5 seconds to say yes/know and you have to do it to get a driver's license here, and it's just written right on the license
It could be so easy...
Kevin Montrose on August 21, 2012

Over the last 4 years we’ve built up quite a bevy of moderation tools here at Stack Exchange.  We’ve got closing, editing, deleting, flags of all sorts, voting, commenting, review queues, and more.

Plus our super secret mod tools.

These all work great, but they all require action after a post is made. This is a lot of work for the community, and not particularly friendly toward those posting, particularly new users. In a perfect world, we’d be able to offer specific, targetted guidance for authors whose posts were likely to be shot down, before they ever showed up on the site, and without requiring as much up-front effort from our community. …

@JoshGitlin Thanks.
3 hours later…
7:43 PM
@JoshGitlin why do they hate system messages? They are great for getting the community to do things... and getting our name change through is VERY important before September
@TimStone we don't seem to get enough attention from that bulletin, I definitely never notice it.
@JoshGitlin so next time we get @StevenJeuris to do it :D
@JoshGitlin I disagree... we are in danger of the site becoming boring... I think we need to push hard for more users, especially technically inclined ones to balance our "I read one pop-sci article and have a brain so am an expert" crowd.
@JoshGitlin no! It is extremely important to get it before September... otherwise we will have to wait a whole year to have a similar opportunity. We are an academic field and sadly the seasons are very important because of it.
will read and respond to these in a moment
@JoshGitlin I wouldn't mind, but my plate is full, so I can't be the lead.
@BenBrocka they had a similar thing for some sort of car-insurance related stuff in NJ vs. Pennsylvania
@BenBrocka I bet this varies from state to state
@ArtemKaznatcheev Organ donor stuff? I can't imagine it's all THAT different
so reddit made my blog go viral today...
1.4k views in the last 16 hours
and I didn't even write a new post...
haven't written anything in a month
@ArtemKaznatcheev Link me!
7:58 PM
(sorry, trying to do work and a mod chatcast simultaneously, will be available soon)
8:18 PM
@ArtemKaznatcheev Not sure why... I know some other communities really despise them. You could ask on MSO, but I have been told not to use them like this again, so, I won't...
@ArtemKaznatcheev Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way suggesting that we should not be doing everything possible to grow our community!
I'm just saying my #1 fear was we were about to be closed
@ArtemKaznatcheev I don't see the connection between a name change and september
@JoshGitlin I've never heard a "communities" explanation, just SE telling people not to use them
September is a great time to add new users, yes
It's a great time to grow our community.
He means because of the new school year
I assume
But the name change needs vast community support. So we need to grow the community first so we can have a large body choosing and backing a better name
@BenBrocka I've heard mostly on MSO users bitching when messages are used
I clearly haven't been listening well enough, LOL
As @TimStone and you both knew that the team didn't want me to use it this way
MSO bitches when the system messages AREN'T used
8:22 PM
MSO bitches period :-)
MSO bitches, full stop :P
Yes :-)
Also I <3 MSO!
lol I typed that before yours showed up
@BenBrocka Clearly the system likes me better then ;-)
@BenBrocka Yes, I understand about the school year, but I am not sure the connection to the name change
so students what WTF it's about
8:24 PM
Also, do we know if there is an official policy on redirect domain names? I believe the official policy is a resounding NO
@BenBrocka We just need to be more clear when we refer people
Our new welcome message and about us page helps clarify
8:58 PM
@JoshGitlin as @BenBrocka said, people need to know what this site is about
this site is not about just cognitive science
it is about neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and cognitive science
and the little s at the end of Cognitive Sciences StackExchange
does not make this obvious
But the welcome message, about page, and existing content show that
so everytime I tell someone the name of the site, or give a link
I have to also in the same breath say
"but it isn't just about cognitive science: neuroscience is also on topic"
@ArtemKaznatcheev Don't tell them the name of the site :-) Say "visit the Stack Exchange site for psychology and neuroscience at cogsci.stackexchange.com"
8:59 PM
once the user has gotten to the welcome message and about page and existing 'content'
we already have them
we need the name to get people to come
To be clear: I am NOT saying the name should remain the same :-)
and as for the general comment about knowing what is on topic on the site from the existing content
But what I am saying is, we're not going to be granted a name change yet
I think this is not a good guide
few people check the existing content
Therefore, we need to work with what we have and find a way around the name
9:01 PM
and most of our good questions are few and far between
the majority of the front page is pseudoscience and lay-questions
@ArtemKaznatcheev I think this should be our #1 concern
which I sincerely hope is not the goal of the site
pseudoscience, hell no
@JoshGitlin well, fine cargo-cult not pseudo
9:01 PM
Should we request one of these (the citation needed bit at the bottom there)
@BenBrocka YES! DO WANT! (Please ask on Meta)
@BenBrocka no
A good science site doesn't need to ask for citations
@BenBrocka Or maybe I should ask and you both can answer
only if people are giving poor answers
@ArtemKaznatcheev this is how we get to be a good science site though
9:03 PM
or are not actually knowledgeable on the topic
are the citations essential
if someone who is knowledgeable has impediments to sharing their knowledge placed artifically in front of them, then that is not good
No, but statements based on personal opinion and experience are the ones you guys flag for me to add notices to :-)
that being said, I don't think anyone will actually ever read that message anyways
@ArtemKaznatcheev this I agree with
@JoshGitlin no, we flag ones made by non-academics and that are stated in obviously non-scientific language
or atleast I do
It could use some tweaking, but I think the spirit is very much valid here: statements based purely on opinion still aren't welcome here; experience based stuff still needs to be related to real science
9:04 PM
if an answer is given by someone and from their language I can tell that they understand the basic science and have some experience with it, and what they say makes sense, then I don't demand citations
@ArtemKaznatcheev made by non-academics -- "personal experience" (as opposed to "laboratory experience", non-scientific language -- "opinion" :-)
and I am not the only one that votes and does it this way
for instance, look at my highest voted answer:
A: What are drawbacks to probabilistic models of cognition?

Artem KaznatcheevProbabilistic approaches of this sort are usually referred to more specifically as the bayesian approach and Chater and Tanenbaum are definitely bayesians (I have not read much by Yuille and can't comment). Bayesianism is more than just increasing in popularity and being encouraged; it is conside...

@BenBrocka Are you in favor? if so, let me ask, you can both answer
It has only one tangential-citation at the end
most of it is completely my experience and general knowledge of the field. If I was asked to cite every statement I make, i would never write that answer, because it would simply take too long
I only cite the stuff that should be non-obvious to someone who reads regularly in the field.
and I also say things that simply can't be cited, because they are sort of 'folk-knowledge' or 'science culture' in this particular field
and nobody publishes papers explaining the common sense and culture of a given field
(most of the time) so there is nothing to cite
Q: Do we want a warning about scientific answers before users answer?

Josh GitlinAs it was pointed out in chat, Skeptics has the following disclaimer when asking a question: Do we want something similar for our site? If so, what should it say?

9:08 PM
Eh, true. Answer quality hasn't been as big an issue as questions anyway
@ArtemKaznatcheev please answer that and say "No"
if we blindly stress always citing (like Skeptics does) then we might turn off some users
Note that maybe we can change the text in there to remove the emphasis on citations, I am asking now
@JoshGitlin I don't feel like typing up an answer right now. I really don't care that much about it. Just letting you know that it isn't an obvious 'yes'
@ArtemKaznatcheev OK, cool, thanks
If you never feel like answering, may I copy your points and form a "no" answer so we have something to vote on?
9:13 PM
@JoshGitlin sure thing. I will edit your answer if necessary to clarify my position after.
Thanks for taking care of this
@ArtemKaznatcheev No problem!
9:25 PM
@ArtemKaznatcheev FYI, still getting clarification, but the wording can be tweaked. If it will be is still unclear :-)
I mean "will be" as in, if they will do that for us if we want the disclaimer but with a different wording
@ArtemKaznatcheev IT'd only be shown to brand new users
@BenBrocka then I don't have a problem with it. As long as we don't approach a blind policy of always saying "citation, plz k thnx"
@ArtemKaznatcheev yeah, actual nagging will be reserved for blatant cases, this (I think) is just the pop up unregistered/1 rep users see
was thinking it'd be more of a reminder you're on a scientific site than a hard requirement to cite all possible sources; I agree that's a pain in the ass
9:44 PM
@BenBrocka as long as this point is clear, I am happy with the message but I also wouldn't burn political capital just to get it... since I don't think that would change much. I would save that capital for getting a name change.
True. But the current naming thread doesn't accomplish much without names singled out and voted on
@BenBrocka I will create a new thread soon to try to organize all the names into one.
Plus some evidence
piecemeal voting would be a boon, I'll wait for the new thread then
@BenBrocka and @ArtemKaznatcheev, an update
We already have what Skeptics has, it's just that ours is the default wording
I am OK with our wording as-is, it already says "avoid making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience"
But we can change it if we want (and have consensus)
1 hour later…
11:11 PM
Looks fine to me

« first day (217 days earlier)      last day (4261 days later) »