Jeromy Anglim

@steven (I'm in Melbourne, Australian +10 AEST; so 1800 GMT is 4AM in Melbourne. So that's not really possible for me. But it's probably going to be difficult to find a meeting time that works for europe, melbourne, and the U.S. So I don't mind if it's scheduled without me.

And ultimately, I'm philosophical about the growth of the site. It's been ticking over for a long time doing its thing. Traffic has grown. Site statistics have grown. If you look at the overall stackexchange list of sites, we're at least middly. So, I'd love to see the site grow faster, but I still think its a good site. I think the world is better for having a psychology/cognitive science stack exchange. :-)

Hi Chris (@aliced) Just to reiterate, I support the change that @StevenJeuris is proposing. I was a involved a lot in the early meta discussions on this site. I'm just less well versed in how to make it happen.

I agree with @Steven, managing the flow of mod flags is not too much work. I also fully support some of the more focussed names for the site that have been proposed. But I'm also happy to support the steady and slow build of the site.

Your total contribution to edits, meta, and quality posts means it would be great to have you on board.

Hi @AliceD. I'd second the invitation to join as a mod. I'm certainly not going anywhere. From my perspective, the starting point is just having a strong mod team. Three is good but I think four is better.

@Damien Just to add my voice. I hope you stay involved in the site. Your involvement is most valued.

@JoshGitlin perhaps said in jest, but I'd be happy to do some bounties if it promotes some good answers. I might have a look now and see whether it works. Here's one: cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/…

@JoshGitlin Closing the question sounds good to me.

@StevenJeuris I'm not sure either. Neuro stuff isn't really my area. On a pure voting perspective it has a fair few up votes and fair few close votes. On the face of it, the question has been updated in light of the comments about being possible duplicate; presumably some of those close votes came before the update.

@JoshGitlin I don't mind if the question (cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/1442/52) was closed. And I think it's great when the community amasses the votes rather than using moderator intervention. I'm generally a little bit more reluctant to close once a question gets a reasonable answer. I'm also open to parapsychology-type questions, not because I believe the claims, but I like the thought that a scientific answer can be provided to such questions.

I've added a comment and closed

Honestly, I think there are a couple of interesting answerable questions that could be asked, but that it would stray too much from the original question to ask them.

Hi All, I'm happy to discuss the question.

@stoicfury thanks for thinking of us. Personally, I'm happy for it to be migrated, because I like to welcome many questions, but ultimately I think it's more philosophical than psychological. It also seems that the OP is seeking a philosophical response.

@jonsca I agree with Ben. It is quite philosophical. The language is quite psychoanalytic. I agree that you could discuss evolutionary psychology in relation to the question. If the question was asked on on cogsci.se, we'd probably spend a lot of time re-framing it in order for it to be answerable in a psychological way.

@jonsca It looks like there's been a lot of discussion of the farting question here in chat. Personally, I really like interesting questions about quirky topics like farting. So I was really keen to get the question back on to an answerable footing. I find that when casual users of the site ask a question, there's often this interesting kernel even if the question itself is loaded with assumptions, etc.

@StevenJeuris I think we've been very clear with the feedback to Jim. I think at this point proactive editing of questions is quite reasonable should more be asked that adopt the same style of repeated ungrounded assumptions, etc.

Hi. I do when anyone "@s" me, and I certainly look in from time to time.

@StevenJeuris @Aarthi Thanks for the update on the welcome message.

I've given it another edit. I think it's passable (not great) now.

My preference would be to try to recover the question in some form especially if anyone's willing to put an answer down. I think this site needs more content.

I don't think the liberalism question was asked very well. I agree that questions that are just asking for more information are pretty poor. I also tend to think that looking at brains as the basis for liberalism/conservatism is not the best approach.

I don't really mind if people are asking questions for the purpose of getting out of work. If it's a good question, then I'd welcome it. I think the site currently should be aiming for 2 questions per day in the short term, and we're currently only at 1 per day. But...

@JoshGitlin editing the answer (as Chuck Sherrington did), comments on the answer, discussion on meta; downvoting bad answers; they all seem like good strategies to me for dealing with answers that make problematic recommendations; it also feels a bit more democratic that deleting an answer. But I guess it depends on the specific case and how problematic the answer is.

Even though I don't know a lot about neural networks, I'm comfortable with the question being migrated at least as an experiment. In general, I imagine the general principle applies of there being questions clearly in cogsci.se scope and questions clearly in stats.se scope, and big chunk of overlapping questions where it's really up to the poster to decide which forum they'd prefer.

@whuber Hi there. Welcome. Yes, my interests straddle statistics and psychology. I'm hoping cogsci.se can grow to be as successful as stats.se.

let me know what you think.

I just posted a possible FAQ based on Stats.SE that could act as a starting point: meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/232/…

I tend to be fairly "task focussed" in on the main site. But your comments were most appreciated.

It forced me to think about the issues.

@ArtemKaznatcheev no offence taken. I found it a useful discussion to have.

@JoshGitlin all the best with your work. You put in a lot of effort on this site. Also, hopefully we get some good answers on that parenting question.

@ArtemKaznatcheev The tag question is an interesting one for meta. My feeling is that so far the site has been focussed a lot on cognitive psychology, but that we are starting to get questions in other areas that represent entire fields, and that existing tags are often insufficient.

@JoshGitlin I think your comment on the question sums it up. The question has potential but it is vague and makes assumptions. I think it can be salvaged, or at least the answers will point out the problematic assumptions in the question.

good night all.

on prosopagnosia

something with neuro in it sounds more focussed.

I guess abnormal is pretty broad

Hi Jonsca

but perhaps we need a discipline distinction between clinical psychology/psychiatry/etc and neuropsychology/neurological-disorder/etc.

e.g., scizophrenia and clinical-psychology or scizophrenia and abnormal-psychology

It makes sense to me to include both a discipline tag and a topic tag

But yes, it was great.

@ArtemKaznatcheev yes, the challenges of maintaining work-life-SE balance.

Hi Steven

It's great to see you being actively involved.

Glad to know I was missed :-) I've just returned from my Honeymoon. So, hopefully I'll be a bit more active now.

@ArtemKaznatcheev Thanks for that.

From all this discussion, I think you need to edit your question to more clearly state your country, discipline, and what 100 hours means in your context. What counts as an hour? Just face to face time? What about marking time? How much prep is required in addition to the counted hours? etc. If you are referring to a standard system of counting hours, then make it clear which system you are in e.g., UK, etc.