Artem Kaznatcheev

Does RSA count?

Hey guys, I wanted to crowdsource a question out to you: If you could talk to Abel Prize and Fields Medal winners like Atiyah, Bhargava, Faltings, Hironaka, Mori, Ngo, Szemeredi, Voevodsky, and Wiles what would you want to ask them?

@StevenJeuris I am currently traveling, and will be relatively busy until the second week of October. :(

@StevenJeuris I don't think that (total) reputation is necessarily the best metric either. Mostly because it is cumulative. For example, I have a lot of total rep, but I am not all that active recently.

@Seanny123 do you know if there is a way to lock-in my background colour? Right now I have to change to green after each node

@ChristianHummeluhr I am just using it for discussion, since it is more structured than this chat

@ChristianHummeluhr I would not want yet another communication channel to worry about. An occasional mindmap or other discussion is fine, a constantly on-call thing beyond flags is less fine by me. And I would expect few researchers to have the time or interest to yet another communication channel.

@Seanny123 Twitter doesn't seem to translate well into more than self-advertisement from my experience.

@ChristianHummeluhr I online-know him and can email him.

That doesn't exist in Cognitive Sciences, making our job very difficult

@Seanny123 no. I have discussed this elsewhere before. The reason cstheory and MO have been successful is because they tapped into an existing research level blogging and other online community in math and cs

Is there a way to like set different colours for different users nodes?

@Seanny123 I did

@Seanny123 that mindmap thing is pretty cool! Thanks for pointing me to it, I am enjoying playing with it. Might use it for research.

@ChristianHummeluhr the issue is that none of the expert users stuck around either.

@StevenJeuris I hope so, but I have no idea, really. I just remember the pushback against it back in 2013

I would be happy to enforce much stricter guidelines on the quality of questions and answers, if that is what the community is interested in

I got a lot of pushback from other users during this time, but as a normal user, I could stand my ground and debate the issue. As a moderator, I cannot debate in the same way as a normal community member, and as such I have mostly stuck to looking at flags and closing questions. Enforcing whatever the community determines as the way forrward

@ChristianHummeluhr I realize that you are frustrated, but you have to realize that we were also once active members. There was a time before I was a mod that I pushed hard for a vision of CogSci as a place where experts could ask research level questions and get feedback from others. But just like you got burned out trying to build a community, so did I.

I am leaning toward no, but maybe others have different thoughts?

Hey guys, do we want this question?

@Josh or most of my other questions :P.

Note that I am not advocating for a merger. I just wonder if that might happen.

@ChristianHummeluhr the tension there was not one of domain, but of the level of discussion. Theoretical Physics was militantly research level (like cstheory; in fact, they had a large user overlap) while physics was not.

@ChristianHummeluhr that is exciting. I wonder how people would take to us closing and having our questions merged into biology. Kind of how theoretical physics got closed and most questions (with an exception of quantum-computing and qit questions that moved to cstheory) got merged into physics.

@queenslug as a man, I also hate this question

@Josh Thanks!

@Josh what is the month associated with that peak in 2013?

although I guess half-an-hour late?

@ChristianHummeluhr I am here

@Josh I look forward to seeing these plots!

xkcd.com/323

@Josh the Balmer peak for cogsci?

@ChristianHummeluhr I thought it meant that we should down a few shots before logging into CogSci

here's a new question that I hope will be fun:

(not sure if that is the appropriate imagery)

But to put my typing fingers where my mouth is

Sorry about that

@ChristianHummeluhr Didn't mean it to be so adversarial. I have a tendency to get into such heated discussions. As you might have noticed on G+

However, we usually lack quality questions, and for bad questions (not yours; browse around the lower ranked questions on the site to see some examples)the sharing of opinions results in very bad answers.

I am not of that camp, and want to promote and more fluid sharing of expert opinions and hunches

Right, there is a camp of people on this site who think that absolutely everything has to be backed up with references to papers.

@JustinS those people are not necessarily correct. We have several camps on this site with slightly different views of the goals for the site. I will try to make a case for your question on meta.

Also keep in mind, that these comments are from individual and different users. They do not unanimously reflect the opinion of the site (and although I am a moderator I am writing here with advice and not enforcing a policy) and that is why you get conflicting opinions from users. Your question is definitely an edge case.

@JustinS you could just add your comment as clarification to the question: you are fine of things from any subfield as long as they are of interest to the broader community and understandable by most research psychologists. As "no no" example, you can say how BBS is kind of what you want, but too specific and not of general enough interest.

@JustinS we are not trying to make you not ask this question. The reason people are taking so much time to discuss with you in chat and comments (instead of just closing, for instance I could have cast a binding close vote already if I really thought this question was bad) is because they think your question is good and has great intention but is not completely in line with how the site is used. Hence, they are trying to make suggestions on how to make it a better fit. All communities have some sort of standards and you should try to respect them, especially if you are new & looking for aid.

@JustinS you should make that more explicit in the question. Right now you write "multiple subfields of psychology", which suggests that I can answer with some pretty pedantic things.

@JustinS I like the idea of this question, but I fear it is far too broad. You can take almost any issue of BBS, for instance, and it will be an answer. I know you've had an extensive discussion about this in chat, but can you tighten this question further?