What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. You explained pretty well what each thread should have. I wish each one could stick to these standards. I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed.

Participation: It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. For that reason, they should not be dominated by just a few participants. Side conversations tend to be distracting and should be avoided. — Alkis Piskas

Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. I bet that even some members do not read the content of the threads just because of who is the user that wrote it. I think it is unfair, but we have both debated this issue a lot...

I came across a very interesting reference on the subject and, since Discussions are the heart of this place, I believe this is a good place for submitting it. — Alkis Piskas

@javi2541997 is right. This is a good idea for a thread. I never saw it when it was first posted.

All of the points you've highlighted are important, but the one I think is the biggest issue here on the forum is "Focus: A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off on various tangents incidental to the main issues at hand." The way that happens is that someone writes a good OP, which, by the way, you have. In my mind, the OP is where you set out the rules for the discussion. One thing I think is important is that all the important terms are defined. In other discussions on that issue, others have disagreed with me. They think the meanings of the words should be defined as part of the discussion. In my experience, that leads to "wandering off on various tangents."

Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up.

Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up. — T Clark

You are welcome, friend. :up:

Hi! Javi! Well come back!
Thanks for your (single) response to my article.

What a good thread, Alkis! I do not understand why you didn't have any reply at all. — javi2541997

Thanks a lot, Javi!
I believe too it is good, but I see it more as a useful guide and something that would increase the quality of this place.
But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ...
However, as I undestand, people in here don't really care either about decent, disciplined, well-constructed and constructive discussions. They rather prefer anarchy. And be free as they want.
In a way, I can undestand this. This is a social place and some chat is always desirable. But within limits, of course. This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it.

I think it is not only good for keeping this site with quality threads but also for the moderators in general, because - sometimes - they lack of having arguments on discern which thread deserves to be on the main page, in The Lounge or even removed. — javi2541997

You are right.

[Re Participation] Well, this point never gets taken seriously. I think each thread would have more or less participation depending on the author, not the content itself. — javi2541997

I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is.

Thank you for your acknowledgment of my article, T Clark.

But it's not a thread. It's an article and that's why I have posted it in the 'Article Submissions' section.
Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ... — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I am aware that it is not a "thread" at all, because it is posted in "article submissions" with the aim of having some exchanges and maybe not a deep philosophical debate.
Yet, I don't understand why this didn't have replies or feedback. I share the same feeling as Clarky. I don't remember seeing your post on the main page. Otherwise, I promise I would have posted something.

This is why I prefer to use the INBOX for personal exchanges. From the amount of chit-chats I see in here, I believe most people here never use it. — Alkis Piskas

I agree. Well said.

I believe that too. People like more to discuss with "friends", independently of how interesting and useful a topic and its description by the PO is. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. :up:

First, it should be noted that the guidelines were written for teachers leading classroom discussion. I think the following claim is questionable for both classroom discussion and forum discussion:

It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible. — Alkis Piskas

Why is this desirable? There are several questionable assumptions underlying this, including:

1) Everyone has something of value to contribute.

2) Those who say nothing are not participating.

3) What is important is the process not the substantive content.

4) A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off.


The first is based on a pervasive egalitarian prejudice that underlies popular educational philosophy. One problem with this becomes apparent when we consider the third assumption. In my opinion it is better to have enough self-knowledge to know when to stop talking and listen.

I am reminded of the following advice:

When you’re teaching always assume there is a silent student in the class who knows more than you do.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say.

With regard to 4), when it comes to philosophical discussion the first rule to follow is this:

...wherever the argument,like a wind, tends, thither must we go. (Republic 394d)

This does not mean endless discussion of claims that go nowhere, but it is not always clear ahead of time where it will go. This is not to say that going off topic is never a problem, but that preemptive attempts to prevent that from happening may result in bigger problems. It may be that a tangent is self-limiting, not pursued beyond a few posts, but in other cases it can circle back or expand the initial inquiry in a useful way. One thing leading to another, something new may arise that would not have otherwise. In my opinion, it is best to allow a bit of messiness. If we knew ahead of time where an inquiry will lead the inquiry itself would not be necessary, and strict control of where it goes will surely prevent it from going to places that may be fruitful and interesting.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say. — Fooloso4

Interesting thought. You are right in this point.

But I think it is complex to apply it on this site where the activity depends on the number of replies that each thread can get. If a thread doesn't have enough answers, it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum.

This is where I guess the issue starts. The number of replies in each thread doesn't depend on how hard you worked on your thread. There are other facts that can condition your OP: if you are not "friends" with others; if you are not likable; if you don't talk about religion and AI, etc. The example of Alkis is excellent. I personally believe that this thread is interesting but it remained without participation for two months. Why did this happen?
I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site put the same OP, they would have had multiple answers!

What I noticed is that some remain silent because they just ignore the users, not because they are thinking about what I posted.

activity depends on the number of replies — javi2541997

Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread.

it can end up in absolute forgetfulness, passing one page and another, and then disappearing in the endless information stock of this forum. — javi2541997

Perhaps, but it is possible, and I would like to believe common for some posts to reemerge at some later date when someone researches a philosopher or idea or question or problem. At least this is what I tell myself.

I bet that if one of the famous and common "philosophers" of this site ... — javi2541997

I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. In some cases, especially with members who have been here for a long time, it is not worth the time and energy to rehash the some things once again. In addition, some members do not handle disagreement well. Speaking personally, when this becomes evident I tend not to respond to them.

Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions.







.

Right, but what is the connection between activity and importance? It is easy to post something that will generate a lot of response, but this can be a poor measure of the significance of the thread. — Fooloso4

I agree that activity is not necessarily connected with the importance of a thread, but when any of them doesn't get any reply at all, it seems that it lacks relevance. It has happened to me a few times. After posting my OP and seeing literally zero replies, my first impression is that my thread is bad or not important.
Whether it is a poor measure of significance or not, it affects you anyway. Because, as I explained, a thread depends on the number of replies and it is incomprehensible why some appear on the front of the page and others (more interesting) don't.
For example, the Donald Trump and Ukraine Crisis threads should be put in The Lounge, because these are not philosophical but political. Yet, they hold a lot of activity.

I was not aware that there are any. But famous or not, I agree that some members grab attention and others go unnoticed or are deliberately ignored. Those who are ignored certainly play some role in this. — Fooloso4

Exactly. This is what I was trying to say. :up:

Added: I am speaking in general terms, not about the author of this thread, with whom I have had some interesting discussions. — Fooloso4

@Alkis Piskas is an original thinker and a good person, indeed.

The problem is that points 1, 2 and 3 are in conflict with points 4, 5, and 6.

People differ in opinion largely because they disagree as to matters like topicality, clarity and validity. So keeping a discussion on track according to one set of views on those first matters tends to work against that latter. In other words, the conversation becomes limited to a group of people sufficiently close in view that they find little to challenge their views among the participants.

If you want...

a diversity of ideas and opinions and stimulate new ways of looking at issues among the participants — Alkis Piskas

... you are going to struggle with...

well-supported — Alkis Piskas

... since the quality of the support will almost inevitably be the very "diversity of ideas and opinions" you're looking for.

Despite oddly niche opinion to the contrary, logic isn't that hard. Looking at data and drawing a rational conclusion from it is simply not that difficult for most intelligent, educated people, so most disagreements at that level are about the validity of the data (methodological issues) or the frame (the qualities of the model other than it's fit to the data).

It's a phenomena unique to a certain stage of intelligentsia, the belief that the key battle ground of ideas is in some mental boxing ring of rational punches and logic counter-blocks out of which the truth comes victorious.

Yet one would expect at least a simple acknowledgent ...
— Alkis Piskas — javi2541997

Well, I must not complain. Yesterday I received an acknowledgement from T Clark. (But only after you have rocked the boat! :smile:)

I don't remember seeing your post on the main page — javi2541997

As I realized yesterday, when I was looking for that article, one has to open the "Artrcles Submitted" section to see it! And I don't think this is what people use to do ...
So, once again, it was unfair from my part to complain and also jufge people's attitudes regarding discussions! :zip:

First, it should be noted that the guidelines were written for teachers leading classroom discussion. I think the following claim is questionable for both classroom discussion and forum discussion: — Fooloso4

This may be true, but it is about guidelines as you yourself say. The post though was an article and not guidlenes, for which BTW only the TPF administrators can post. It is an article about "elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one". as I said.
Participants in discussions can always consult such ideas. And those who really care can be inspired by or at least get reminded of them.

[Re "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible."] Why is this desirable? — Fooloso4

Because one participant is better than none. And two participants are better than one! :smile:
Of course, the anount of participation normally has to do with the topic and its description, how many people are familiar with the subject, how much it attracts their interest, etc.
However, what is rally happening here is that the participation is more based on "friendship" or "enmity", and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description. I have come to this realization in the 4 years since I joined TPF. And I'm not the only one who believes that. And this factor alone limits participation.

There are several questionable assumptions underlying this, including: — Fooloso4

OK, OK. Again, these are not guidelines or rules of conduct that one must abide to. One can get from that whatever inspires or gets remidended of him/her. In other words, it's not a subject to be discussed about. If that were the case, I would have posted it in the regular Discussions section.

In my opinion it is better to have enough self-knowledge to know when to stop talking and listen. — Fooloso4

Right. But I belive the key element here is "conscience" rather than "self-knowledge".

When you’re teaching always assume there is a silent student in the class who knows more than you do. — Fooloso4

Sure, there may be. But you can;t do anything about it, can you? And even if you could, it wouldn't have changed anything, would it?

As an end word, anyone can create one's own rules or important elements in a discussion that make it good or bad. The question is how applicable/workable and effective these rules or elements are in practice.

The problem is that points 1, 2 and 3 are in conflict with points 4, 5, and 6. — Isaac

They might be. I'm not willing to analyze this. As I just said to Fooloso4, these are suggestions, ideas, criteria regarding a good discussion. Each person may have their own. The question is if they work and are effective, at least for the majority of people. And I believe the ones I presented --which are not mine-- are applicable and quite effective and I believe acceptable by most people.

So keeping a discussion on track according to one set of views on those first matters tends to work against that latter. — Isaac

That's true. I have indicated a couple of times to my interlocutor that we have deviated from the topic, but they believed that what we were talking was "on track" as you say. But this doesn't mean that there mustn't be a kind of rule that reminds to stay on track, does it? :smile:

Looking at data and drawing a rational conclusion from it is simply not that difficult — Isaac

I don't know where are you applying the element of logic to here, but it made me realize something that I wish to add to this topic: These "rules" --if you want-- are in fact so evident for most intelligent people, that they can be actually considered as just "reminders". :smile:

It is an article about "elements that are considered important in a discussion and distinguish a good discussion from a poor one". — Alkis Piskas

According to the article:

A goal of a discussion if to have everyone involved and participating in the discussion.

This is a common but questionable assumption in the philosophy of education, a vestige of a factory model. A way of measuring productivity.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say.

these are not guidelines or rules of conduct that one must abide to. — Alkis Piskas

They are presented as a measure of a good discussion:

... there are several elements in the process of discussion which serve to distinguish a good discussion from a poor one

For both classroom and forum discussion I don't agree.

Sure, there may be. But you can;t do anything about it, can you? — Alkis Piskas

You can. You can change your assumptions and attitude, which might change what you say and how you say it.

The question is how applicable/workable and effective these rules or elements are in practice. — Alkis Piskas

Hence my questions.

A goal of a discussion if to have everyone involved and participating in the discussion. This is a common but questionable assumption in the philosophy of education, a vestige of a factory model. A way of measuring productivity. — Fooloso4

The article says "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible", not everyone. That would be impossible, anyway. Then is an indicative element. It shows a direction, a desirability. Opposite to it is "as less as possible". Which of course is undesirable.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? — Fooloso4

It is applicable to any discussion forum according its structure,size, rules, etc.
And it is good that brought up the element of participation, because I find it most important, even vital. Why? Because participation depends on the way the discussion is taking place. A characteristic example is that about one in ten OPs do not even care to reply to someone who reacts to his/her topic. And not once, but twice. And some of these OPs ask explicitly for a participation! So, besides that showing lack of politeness and respect, it is detrimental to participation. Because It is natural that the person who has been ignored abstains from a further response to such an OP. Isn't that right?

Another thing that happens, equally important and detrimental, and which may partially explain the lack of response from the part of such OPs is -- I repeat it verbatim because it has maybe escaped your attention-- "the participation is more based on 'friendship' or 'enmity', and likes or dislikes among people rather than interest in the topic itself and its description".
This is natural in social contacts in everyday life, but it shouldn't happen in a discussion forum, except of course in cases when there's is a clash and adversion between two persons. But we are not talking about such cases. Yet, because it is a natural human reaction and a particular one, we cannot include it among the elements or rules of a good discussion.

You can change your assumptions and attitude, which might change what you say and how you say it. — Fooloso4

No one can require from anyone to change their ideas, beliefs, assumptions or any personal trait in order to participate construtively to a productive discussion. False assumptions, defective reasoning or lack of knowledge are in the game. One needs only to follow and apply the elements --or as many of them and as well as possible-- that make a discussion smooth, productive and constructive.

How well does this translate to a philosophy forum? For one, there is no requirement for someone to pretend to be interested in a thread or to say something in order to count as participating. In addition, there is no expectation that members know enough about a topic to have something to say. — Fooloso4

I am curious about this fact. I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
The experience and two years and a half on this site make me end up in this conclusion. I guess my discussions are not that complex, sometimes I had a good number of replies, others not. But they are threads by which you can express yourself so easily. Most of the users around here can maintain arguments.

Absolutely right, nobody has the aim to participate in a thread, but what I feel is that there is not equity. The level of interaction of a thread doesn't depend on if it is clear or attractive but who is the author.

The article says "It is desirable that the discussion has as many participants as possible", not everyone. — Alkis Piskas

The statement was a direct quote from the section "participation".

One needs only to follow and apply the elements — Alkis Piskas

I don't agree, but will leave it there.

I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %) — javi2541997

I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond.

But I have said enough about why I think a post or poster might not get responses.

You make some good points, and I think you are right to note that what works for a classroom discussion will be somewhat different from what works for an online forum.

To remain silent may be an important form of participation. One in which one thinks about what has been said rather than thinking about what to say. — Fooloso4

I am considering the thought that in a classroom discussion one tends to know that their voice is being attended to. Silence in the classroom can very often signify the fact that listeners are processing and considering, and there are all sorts of other cues which can be used to help discern such a fact.

With an online forum, on the other hand, silence is highly ambiguous. If there is a 'like' button or some other way to evaluate posts then one can glean a better sense of the silent participation in a thread, but apart from that one only knows if their voice is being heard when someone replies. Even when there is a 'like' button the ambiguous silence is still quite strong. This inevitably means that threads and posts are written to garner replies rather than to garner attention.

The interesting thing about this forum is that when I came and read Baden's guide to writing an OP, I was prepared to write thorough and high-octane OPs. But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. This doesn't mean that the "research" model for OPs is suboptimal, but that model probably produces more pondering and silent listening, which in turn produces ambiguous silence.

With an online forum, on the other hand, silence is highly ambiguous. — Leontiskos

Yup.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. This doesn't mean that the "research" model for OPs is suboptimal, but that model probably produces more pondering and silent listening, which in turn produces ambiguous silence. — Leontiskos

Good point.

I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
— javi2541997

I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond. — Fooloso4

I agree. There are fascinating discussions I don't participate in because:

1) I feel I can add nothing further to what has been said already.
2) I don't have a particular view on the subject.
3) The subject is too specialized and/or unfamiliar to me.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. — Leontiskos

I think there's a rather informal, casual approach to the subject here and people probably don't want to get too fancy.

I know that some of you don't act in the way I refer to in my arguments. But you are just a few. What I tend to argue is some facts about why some discussions get more relevance or "activity". I still maintain that who the author is is very important rather than the content of the OP itself. To be honest, I have always tried to publish substantive threads with the aim of having exchanges. Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen?

I think @Leontiskos explained pretty good. The threads which do not stick to the rules provided by the moderators are the ones that receive more attention paradoxically.

Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen? — javi2541997

I think OP's sometimes grab attention because the timing is right and the wording used seems to grab people's imagination. It's not a science, so who knows? It can be fickle territory. Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses.

I disagree with Focus and Participation.

Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses. — Tom Storm

I agree. But here we end up in the same dilemma. If one thread doesn't get one or five replies at least, it will not be considered as "interesting" or "philosophical" and then, it will disappear from the pages of this site. For example, this thread of Alkis remained silent for two months. I was lucky to discover it, but who knows if I never wrote the first reply. We wouldn't be debating this morning when it is clear a good OP, even more clear and substantive than others that always remain in the main page.

I disagree with Focus and Participation. — I like sushi

OK. Why?

You need one or the other in general. A ‘focused’ dialogue can quickly become one that that misses the forest for the trees whilst one with more participants becomes little more than a free for all.

To go into a bit more depth … if someone insists that something someone is saying has nothing to do with the topic it could just be that they are missing the chance to take an alternative approach. What can seem like far off the beaten track can be key to the fundamental question at hand.

With ‘Participants’ too many lines of inquiry can cause confusion and what was once a dynamic discussion between 3-4 people turns into a muddled mess following several different themes/lines.

With 3-4 people involved less guarding of focus breathes life and exploration into the discussion. With more and more people the focus needs to be rigid to avoid confusion … but imo this will result in a severe lack of exploration.

I understand. The participation of many users in a single thread can be chaotic but the line of importance/attraction is blurred in these cases. Maybe it is not your case, but whenever you login into TPF and you see some threads with a considerable number of replies, the users quickly think that those threads seem to be interesting while others with, lack of answers/participation are not. Well, I completely disagree in this point, but this is how this forum works. It is obvious that whenever you start a discussion you wish to have some acknowledgement or feedback at least.

So, you need to get some participants and replies. What is the clue of posting a thread and not receiving any replies at all?

OK. Thanks four your reaction to the article, anyway.