The Correlation Of Number Of Posts To Intelligence

[Da Blob]

There probably is not much of a correlation between intelligence and number of posts. However, I am curious about the variables involved. What could be the correlations found in a cross reference between number of posts on internet forums and a range dependent variables? Is there a difference between those who post 200 comments and those who post 2000 comments?

Not to speak of the perpetual Lurkers

Is age a factor?

Personality?

Mental health?

Others...

Is survival on a forum dictated by some weird determination of survival of the fittest, or perhaps the opposite

 

[Puffy]

Your not being modest on account of the number of posts you have, by any chance, Blob?

 

[Da Blob]

Your not being modest on account of the number of posts you have, by any chance, Blob?

Pfft! This immodest query from a novice of 1606?

No, with the arrivals of the ENTs on the forum, I was wondering about the ecosystems of internet forums. How many subspecies like the ENTs could adapt by migration and therefore survive?

[bimgx=650]http://intpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1909&stc=1&d=1358384677[/bimgx]

I am bothered by the high turnover rate on this forum. Being who I am, I see it as a casualty rate, especially when one factors in the deaths.

Are we doing something wrong?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Pfft! This immodest query from a novice of 1606?

No, with the arrivals of the ENTs on the forum, I was wondering about the ecosystems of internet forums. How many subspecies like the ENTs could adapt by migration and therefore survive?

I am bothered by the high turnover rate on this forum. Being who I am, I see it as a casualty rate, especially when one factors in the deaths.

Are we doing something wrong?

But I didn't die! Just had to go for awhile.

People come and go, they take what they want/need and leave what they can give. It's not a casualty rate, it's just sometimes a person may not need/like us anymore. Eh, maybe it can be seen as a casualty. But who is the statistic? Us or them?

 

[BigApplePi]

There probably is not much of a correlation between intelligence and number of posts.

Agreed but there might be a correlation with those who are fond of talking about nothing at all and everything in particular.

However, I am curious about the variables involved. What could be the correlations found in a cross reference between number of posts on internet forums and a range dependent variables?

Variables? Limited time versus lots of free time. Introversion versus extroversion. Ennui versus fervent causes. Busy family/business life versus loneliness. Inability to type versus speed typer. Curiosity about a Forum versus curiosity about everything.

Is there a difference between those who post 200 comments and those who post 2000 comments?

1800 comments but anyone could have calculated that with an ordinary pocket calculator.

Not to speak of the perpetual Lurkers

If we look hard enough we might find secret stats on that.

Is age a factor?

The older one lives, the more posts one can make. (The opposite is true also.) Those of middle age would need to experience an age crisis to tell.

Personality?

It helps to have one but it's not a requirement.

Mental health?

I will report back on this after seeing my psychiatrist one more time provided they let me out of this damn jacket.

Others...

You mean those lurkers? I find them hard to converse with but haven't kept count.

Is survival on a forum dictated by some weird determination of survival of the fittest, or perhaps the opposite

To survive on a forum one must have either an interest in people or a varied interest in topics or a continuing challenge or all of those. There is a natural attrition due to life's circumstances. One must have the ability to see differences in what appears to be the same to see things fresh and anew. One must have the ability to see people at the other end of the screen as real people.

Note: I wouldn't have replied to this post if it were not for this post. Therefore I propose to ask is the number of replies to posts in any way related to the number of posts? This may not be a qualifier for a new thread ... in which case a lot of unnecessary turmoil can be avoided.

 

[Da Blob]

Still and all, there is data to be mined.

I really would like to see a multivariate analysis based upon the fabulous data base of this forum's archives...

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you have a feeling for the kinds of variables that could be approached?

 

[Da Blob]

I had not really thought about it. It actually would be tough without many dependent variables to work with, all we really have is location.

One analysis that would be interesting would be to compare the responses to threads in the different subforums to the MBTI scales.

Another would be to compare the number of comments that could considered to be rude or offensive with the post counts.

I would like to figure out how to encourage the more interesting people to stay active in the forum, as well as identifying those obnoxious individuals who actually just need a bit of positive feedback to allow themselves to mellow out ... As opposed to those adolescents who seem to glory in antisocial behavior behind a cloak of anonymity.

 

[The Introvert]

I would argue simply that content of posts/ threads is the most determinant factor, if you're looking at intelligence. I can spam and be stupid, or lurk and be stupid; it's much more difficult to speak intelligently if you don't actually have the mental capacity (or at least the vocabulary) to do so.

With that said, I suppose threads are a more arduous task compared to comments, and generally require a more logical and well-managed thought process (not to mention inventing the initial question that is required to begin a new discussion). Again, content is the determining factor here, IMO.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

However, I am curious about the variables involved.

Articulation.

 

[BigApplePi]

I had not really thought about it. It actually would be tough without many dependent variables to work with, all we really have is location.

One analysis that would be interesting would be to compare the responses to threads in the different subforums to the MBTI scales.

Another would be to compare the number of comments that could considered to be rude or offensive with the post counts.

I would like to figure out how to encourage the more interesting people to stay active in the forum, as well as identifying those obnoxious individuals who actually just need a bit of positive feedback to allow themselves to mellow out ... As opposed to those adolescents who seem to glory in antisocial behavior behind a cloak of anonymity.

This might require more thought. Personality characteristics are inherently fuzzy. I'd hate to see people put in boxes even with anonimity. I once read about a school teacher who asked students to line up according to what they thought were their popularity. How would you like to be last? No way to objectify this IMO. Rudeness? How would one define that? One person's rudeness could be another person's "right on!" Then how rude? What degree? Is this science or morality? Supposes I say, "two percent of all messages are rude." How's that for a guess? Isn't such classification tempting to moralize? A forum can act naturally or and forum can have a lid put on it. There are issues here.

Doable:
One could take statistics on the number of letters in messages. That would work if one could figure out how to apply a random number generator to take samples. Another is messages per day. Another is average time between messages posted over the last two weeks.

 

[redbaron]

People who have 729 posts at the time of this posting are geniuses - fact.

 

[BigApplePi]

People who have 729 posts at the time of this posting are geniuses - fact.

Do those who happen to have 9 x 9 x 9 posts (either by chance or by deliberation) plan to hold that count until their genius runs out?

 

[redbaron]

Do those who happen to have 9 x 9 x 9 posts (either by chance or by deliberation) plan to hold that count until their genius runs out?

No. Those people are forever geniuses. Sheesh, get with the times already.

 

[rrgjl]

I'd instinctively say that more posts in less time would probably point to less intelligence, as an intelligent post takes time, and more importantly, there is only so much interesting stuff to respond intelligently to, whereas nonsense can be posted at all times.

Of course it's a rule of thumb and doesn't apply in all cases.

 

[snafupants]

People who have 729 posts at the time of this posting are geniuses - fact.

@redbaron

You're a star!

 

[BigApplePi]

One could set a standard for themselves. Make 1 of 10 posts intelligent, run nine msgs of nonsense to recover, then screw up one's courage for another intelligent post and repeat. I'm on that nine run right now so if it goes on longer, stop me.

 

[Da Blob]

Hmm, no easy answers and from my POV, the regression of the individual to the Mean to enable statistical analysis would be counter productive in most cases.

Still and all, surely there is a method that can be used to identify patterns, both pro-social and antisocial. There may even be an 'ideal' pattern for an individual thread to follow or a list of criteria that really good OPs include.

Hmm! What proportion of comments are scientific and how many are artistic?

It just seems to be that this media of 'internet forums' can yet evolve into something either beautiful and therapeutic or threatening and destructive. It would be nice if there was a method that could be used to build the "Perfect Forum", but it seems to me that innovation often requires new information. We need a pattern recognition program that can operate using fuzzy logic...

 

[BigApplePi]

Still and all, surely there is a method that can be used to identify patterns, both pro-social and antisocial. There may even be an 'ideal' pattern for an individual thread to follow or a list of criteria that really good OPs include.

Another good question. Look for a formula? Avoid rigidity. Are open themes better than closed ones because they invite or closed ones better than open because they accomplish?

Hmm! What proportion of comments are scientific and how many are artistic?

Definitions! I associate science with analysis and art with context for values. Each uses the other though.

It just seems to be that this media of 'internet forums' can yet evolve into something either beautiful and therapeutic or threatening and destructive. It would be nice if there was a method that could be used to build the "Perfect Forum", but it seems to me that innovation often requires new information. We need a pattern recognition program that can operate using fuzzy logic...

One can look for descriptive terminology but my thought is the terminology could be as difficult as the issue. To make a good forum, one needs good themes, good people, good technology, good management. These come from the outside, not inside. Given those inputs, would that work?

@Da Blob, Note: Kuu, Fukyo, loveofreason
Qualities of a good forum:

1. Good themes - must have content
2. Good people - must be able to relate to that content
3. Good technology - must have liquidity of interaction
4. Good management - must have guidance when things inevitably go awry
5. Good interface with outside (publicity) to overcome attrition & replenish

 

[Da Blob]

Another good question. Look for a formula? Avoid rigidity. Are open themes better than closed ones because they invite or closed ones better than open because they accomplish?

Perhaps that would be best determined by the subforum? As of now, it seems to be one of many things we do not know (?)

Definitions! I associate science with analysis and art with context for values. Each uses the other though.

Yes, but should there not be a balance struck between the deconstruction that is analysis and the construction that is self-expression?

One can look for descriptive terminology but my thought is the terminology could be as difficult as the issue. To make a good forum, one needs good themes, good people, good technology, good management. These come from the outside, not inside. Given those inputs, would that work?

Ummm, no not really, the causality is inverted, if it works then all of the elements listed can be said to be good. However, gathering the best of assets does not mean the best of outcomes, re: Systems Theory

@Da Blob, Note: Kuu, Fukyo, loveofreason
Qualities of a good forum:

1. Good themes - must have content
2. Good people - must be able to relate to that content
3. Good technology - must have liquidity of interaction
4. Good management - must have guidance when things inevitably go awry
5. Good interface with outside (publicity) to overcome attrition & replenish

This is a 'good' list, yet it seems to hint at a yet unidentified dynamic system, the process by which a forum, like a living organism, uses resources to flourish and grow - in some manner, whether in quality or quantity or both preferably.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Is there a difference between those who post 200 comments and those who post 2000 comments?

Those who post 2000 comments have too much time on their hands, or are otherwise unengaged (or perhaps just unemployed).

Is age a factor?

As connected to social status, probably. It just appears to me that the self-admitted university students here tend to post more, make longer posts, and more aggressively pursue debates/disputes on a wider variety of topics, while the more 'mature' members tend to either speak their piece and bail, or revolve around a small number of recurrently active threads for which they have a high level of personal interest.

Difficult to speculate on whether that somehow relates to biological age.

Personality?

You mean the MBTI variety? IMAO, INTP's are more prone to descend into self-indulgent, wall-of-text douche-baggery than other types.

Mental health?

Interesting...every third Introit poster seems to reveal some sort of mental health issue. INTP anomaly?

Is survival on a forum dictated by some weird determination of survival of the fittest, or perhaps the opposite

(Fine, I'll let that last emotocon survive.) Won't comment on forums in general. On this forum, 'survival' (I assume longevity is what you meant), seems predicated mostly on self-will combined with a lack of a overly emotional (aggresive) posting style.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

However, gathering the best of assets does not mean the best of outcomes, re: Systems Theory

Nope, but the argument could be made that it could mean the potential for the best outcome (although potential is normally a function of complexity).


But for the OP...

This forum functions as an encyclopedic arena where ideas meet and clash, and truth is discovered. This is a place of progress. As a place of progress, it only makes sense that the optimal state centers around what the forum is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization
*bows in reverence as he mentions the ^term*

Naturally, there will be participants and observers, whose roles are determined by the knowledge they possess and their own intrinsic properties. For the latter, I prefer Dabrowski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_disintegration#Development_potential

Essentially, if this mechanism is true, I question any assumption that lurkers are a hidden treasure trove of intelligence that would improve the forum (which isn't to say that development cannot or would not occur if they participated).

 

[Cybeny]

There might be a correlation. But I'd argue that it would be an inverse correlation.

Seriously though, what you really need to do is look at the underlying causes of a high post count and then determine whether that could be because of a high or low intelligence, or just completely unrelated. These could include length of time at the forum, large amount of free time, interest in the forum and familiarity with the internet.

Length of time at the forum - No correlation of intelligence at all.

Large amount of free time - Could be a sign of either high or low intelligence. It could be because the person is not intelligent enough to be doing something more productive, or it could be because the person is so intelligent that they no longer need to do things that disinterests them, and can focus on their interests.

Interest in the forum - I'd argue for this forum it would be a sign of high intelligence. Anybody interested in MBTI, and INTP's in particular, must be pretty intelligent!

Familiarity with the internet - These days, I don't think this can be used to judge intelligence at all. Everybody uses the internet so much, and a lot of it is just mindless facebooking.

So overall I'd argue a high post number could be correlated with intelligence, but is quite murky. A high post rate could probably be correlated better, but it's still a pretty vague correlation. And remember correlation =/= causation!

 

[Hadoblado]

I'd predict the number of lengthy/in depth posts might correlate positively with intelligence, but two-liners would probably correlate higher with extroversion.