The best way to promote discussion

[Rebis]

To promote active forums, I suggest we all hold back from subtext in our posts.
So ask questions rather than answer them in the introductory paragraph.
Give open ended questions instead of just talking to yourself, by means of
asking a question and answering it in the same message.

To increase active forums:
-Keep threads minimal so people can express their beliefs without contributing for sake of redundancy
-Ask questions rather than stating opinions.

Anyone else have something to add? Note: This is an exception as I don't imagine there is much opinion on the topic.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'll try it.

What is an example of such a post? Does your post follow the criteria you propose?
What is your rational for believing that this will drive activity?
What do you think is the reason that people come to this forum?
When the bulk of our text are questions, then don't they then have to rely on subtext to make sense?

You really only stated opinions and had no argumentation for why we should do this. You kinda just said we should do it.

Honestly the best way to increase activity would be hard contrarianism.

 

[Rebis]

I'll try it.

What is an example of such a post? Does your post follow the criteria you propose?
What is your rational for believing that this will drive activity?
What do you think is the reason that people come to this forum?
When the bulk of our text are questions, then don't they then have to rely on subtext to make sense?

You really only stated opinions and had no argumentation for why we should do this. You kinda just said we should do it.

Honestly the best way to increase activity would be hard contrarianism.

I was supposed to add "with exception to this post" as an ending statement, it's edited in now. My post doesn't follow the criteria as it has, in my eyes limited answers. The format of a post is like the spelling of words in a sentence, we don't give it too much thought compared to the ideas the words represent.

I think this will drive activity because INTPs in their introverted ways discuss solutions in their head and using others as a soundboard for their ideas, they can use ideological soundboards in their head for making points so when they state an opinion they have already elevated the discussion to a layer that other passive onlookers may not have reached, weighting arguments in their head. When they actually communicate their point readers won't discuss the lower levels that the proposition is based on.

Take the trophic pyramid as an example: In each energy (Logical reasoning) state, energy (content) is lost in a closed system. In each ascending layer of a logical proposition, there is content lost and tangenital ideas (biodiversity)

People come to this forum to express ideas, find people similar to them and of course mental stimulus. If the person who creates a thread has already revised the point in their head before creating the thread, they are elevating the discussion to a point that the entry-level can forgo other users from jumping in. Activity is lost.

Contrarian is the main vector for discussion on the forum but to take a contrary stance you must have motives such as an important view of your opinion, while freedom of expression which comes from a general question enables everyone to chime in. Contrary points will ensue in the thread, but the subject matter, that is the thread's subtext should be open for interpretation for tangenital ideas to form.

 

[Marbles]

Good advice, but I also enjoy when people lay out a complete theory and I can poke at it, ask questions, see if it is solid. I want both kinds of thread.

 

[Rebis]

Good advice, but I also enjoy when people lay out a complete theory and I can poke at it, ask questions, see if it is solid. I want both kinds of thread.

Yeah I was thinking that, but actually looking at the threads that are most popular they are usually open ended questions. Random thoughts thread, everyone has a random idea. Solutions to wealth inequality, there is subtext but a lot of opened ended interpretations. It's clear the issue of wealth inequality is multi-faceted and cognisant expressed little of the topic in the subtext itself.

So I think subtext should be disproportional to the facets of the subject matter, so less precedent and more tangents rather than a large precedent and a few attenuated developments.

 

[Marbles]

Hmmm... I enjoy a lot of jokes, insights, fun facts here that I don't comment on. Activity isn't all, but I'm not gonna nitpick further.

Err towards giving people room for collective exploration of a topic. <- good advice.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Okay, so. It will drive activity because INTPs develop their ideas before communicating, therefor not being "layman" friendly, therefor alienating people into not participating in discussion? This think of the cognitive bias called the curse of knowledge. Stephen Pinker has talked about it in his lectures about writing. It's pretty fascinating.

I don't agree this is what we want actually. Activity isn't necessarily a good thing, it's just more stuff to dig through if you ask me, and not everyone has the energy or time to dig through the mud and find gold. If anything, your proposal would be a driver of learning more than discussion. What if no one has questions to ask? People can just ask if they don't understand something. If anything we should try to find the solution to the alienating aspect. That really is in the hands of the poster. Perhaps the solution is that we all take a marketing/communications course and perfect the art of manifesting discourse.

 

[Marbles]

@EndogenousRebel
I feel swayed... Where does he talk about the curse of knowledge, do you remember?
Edit: I might just watch this whole thing, it looks interesting...
Edit 2: This is actually really interesting. It addresses a lot of topics I've had on my mind for a while. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Rebis]

Okay, so. It will drive activity because INTPs develop their ideas before communicating, therefor not being "layman" friendly, therefor alienating people into not participating in discussion? This think of the cognitive bias called the curse of knowledge. Stephen Pinker has talked about it in his lectures about writing. It's pretty fascinating.

I don't agree this is what we want actually. Activity isn't necessarily a good thing, it's just more stuff to dig through if you ask me, and not everyone has the energy or time to dig through the mud and find gold. If anything, your proposal would be a driver of learning more than discussion. What if no one has questions to ask? People can just ask if they don't understand something. If anything we should try to find the solution to the alienating aspect. That really is in the hands of the poster. Perhaps the solution is that we all take a marketing/communications course and perfect the art of manifesting discourse.

This is not the curse of knowledge, it is to converse one must presume the reader understands fundamental concepts unless he explains everything from foundational truths: What is that symbol, what does that word mean, what is concept a, what is concept B based on A.,.. and so on. I'm not saying people should act unknowingly for the sake of activity, rather they should not ask questions where they've provided a lengthy answer in the subtext: I do not write a thesis on a specialised subject and then asks average users what they think about the subject matter as I likely won't get a response from others, then it seems I'm using them as a soundboard for their own ideas. I'm producing an echo chamber.

If no one has a question to ask, then naturally it becomes a proposition. In which case, their proposition is valid. However, making a thread implies people will talk about the issue and an open template is inherently better for activity which is the point I've made. If you wish to make a knowledge based assertion it belongs in an academic setting.

Most of us aren't academics and we can't assume the knowledge base of the users, it's a forum based on a personality type so most topics it's appropriate for topics to be general wihtout heavy layers of complexity. People that have advanced knowledge in a topic can discern their confidence base and that of others, naturally they will migrate to forums where their specialty can be discussed. Plus this isn't an academic setting, we're often stating opinions based on facts, not the facts themselves.

 

[Rebis]

Activity is ultimately a good thing, sifting through opinions analysing them is better than setting the entry level high. Sometimes we assume our propositions are logical but there are elements missing, but when we set the foundations on poor infrastructure and give it up as a proposition we assume the foundations are sturdy. I scan through facebook quite aptly, I remember virtually nothing and only a few points pique my interest. I can't remember a single thing I saw on facebook today, I heart reacted something. Maybe that's just me, analysis also includes identifying patterns, to which people can easily forfeit once they're accumstomed. Key words, complexity, structure all allow me to scan information quite easily for flaws, I don't see it as a waste of time because I quickly reject that information.

 

[Rebis]

Idk, your opinion against mine. I don't see any loss at asking a question, waiting for feedback and then giving a fully formed opinion, not just for the sake of inclusivity but a mental battle with others other than myself. If my opinion has been developed by myself, I can keep it to myself before alienating potential contributions.

 

[Tenacity]

To promote active forums, I suggest we all hold back from subtext in our posts.
So ask questions rather than answer them in the introductory paragraph.
Give open ended questions instead of just talking to yourself, by means of
asking a question and answering it in the same message.

To increase active forums:
-Keep threads minimal so people can express their beliefs without contributing for sake of redundancy
-Ask questions rather than stating opinions.

Anyone else have something to add? Note: This is an exception as I don't imagine there is much opinion on the topic.

Putting things in "spoilers" when extrapolations get lengthy or are too subjective might help.

Noticed that @Cognisant does this sometimes in responses.

So, then, should the thread creator want to continue on a train of thought before losing it, it can be wrapped within that functionality. One possibility of reducing bias before answering a question.

Some don't really know what question they're asking, I know I run into these mental blocks sometimes too. So, I sense it's fine to just extrapolate. I tend not to really organize my thoughts much and just think out loud.

Some possibilities:

[Question(s)]
[(Spoiler(s)? containing lengthy extrapolation)]

and/or

[Thought/Statement]
[(Spoiler(s)?)]

and/or

[Random thought]

Obviously there are more modes of organizing thoughts. I sense it gets more exciting when we can get more structured with debate, but it is a hard balance to not be overly serious. However, I actually tend to like the more serious topics with complexity.