Who Is A Bore?
May. 24th, 2009 08:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koganbotTom says that bores are the number one menace to online communities:
Online Communities: Fight The Real Enemy
I put some of my own thought in the comments. To elaborate here, I'd say, beyond the obvious point that dullness lies in the eye of the beholder, it also depends on context. If we're having a discussion of, say, whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, or whether the "hobbits" whose bones were discovered in Indonesia are a separate human species rather than being dwarf homo sapiens, then, if a creationist or believer in intelligent design joined the discussion to argue for creationism or intelligent design, that person would be boring in that context - because he has nothing to add to the discussion. For that matter, someone who used the conversation as a pretext to attack creationism or the idea of intelligent design would be just as boring, as would someone who engaged either of those two in debate.
But that doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design are in themselves boring. Why people hold those views and what they're trying to do with those views is something I'd like to understand - they're not truly interested in birds and dinosaurs or the evolution of hominids, but that doesn't mean that nothing is going on that's worth paying attention to. And I'm more likely to understand people if they're talking to me than if they're not.
Hypothetically, a thread that contained discussion of both dinosaur-bird or "hobbit" evolution, on the one hand, and creationism/intelligent design on the other could be interesting on both counts, but I wouldn't expect this to happen in practice. The creationism convo either would be marginalized or would wipe out the other. But also, my guess is that the vast majority of people would, in practice, get more excited by the creationism/intelligent design fight than by the actual discussion of evolution. And even some of the people interested in the latter would be happy to be distracted by the fight if the discussion of evolution hit a dry spot or required concerted thought.
Online Communities: Fight The Real Enemy
I put some of my own thought in the comments. To elaborate here, I'd say, beyond the obvious point that dullness lies in the eye of the beholder, it also depends on context. If we're having a discussion of, say, whether birds evolved from dinosaurs, or whether the "hobbits" whose bones were discovered in Indonesia are a separate human species rather than being dwarf homo sapiens, then, if a creationist or believer in intelligent design joined the discussion to argue for creationism or intelligent design, that person would be boring in that context - because he has nothing to add to the discussion. For that matter, someone who used the conversation as a pretext to attack creationism or the idea of intelligent design would be just as boring, as would someone who engaged either of those two in debate.
But that doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design are in themselves boring. Why people hold those views and what they're trying to do with those views is something I'd like to understand - they're not truly interested in birds and dinosaurs or the evolution of hominids, but that doesn't mean that nothing is going on that's worth paying attention to. And I'm more likely to understand people if they're talking to me than if they're not.
Hypothetically, a thread that contained discussion of both dinosaur-bird or "hobbit" evolution, on the one hand, and creationism/intelligent design on the other could be interesting on both counts, but I wouldn't expect this to happen in practice. The creationism convo either would be marginalized or would wipe out the other. But also, my guess is that the vast majority of people would, in practice, get more excited by the creationism/intelligent design fight than by the actual discussion of evolution. And even some of the people interested in the latter would be happy to be distracted by the fight if the discussion of evolution hit a dry spot or required concerted thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-24 03:53 pm (UTC)what in wonder is how much the filters of rebarbative style have actually been allowed to grow up to protect people from stuff they don't have an aptitude for: viz that the way economics is written about fends off those who would be flailing and foundering (and thus no great help as presence)? but seems/feels fine to those who are drawn to it?
there's an essay on the website i'm paid editorial advisor to -- about financial trends in the sector -- and i was torn between an instinct to strip it down and rewrite entirely (which would meant *anyone* landing on it not allergic to my own writing style would have been caught up in it) and keeping much as is, jargon-wise, because that mode of clunky and pedantic writing is a signal of authority, when it comes to financial matters (you need to talk the talk to be taken seriously, even if the talk is uniquely awful to outsiders)
in the end i decided i'm not paid enough to weather the diplomatic problems of a complete rewrite -- which would have entailed a ton of questions to the writer abt what exactly was meant here, and is such-and-such a good summary and/or restatement... i'm happy for the website to take on the challenge of reconfiguring some modes of writing, but frankly the financial sector is beyond our remit!!
no subject
Date: 2009-05-24 05:49 pm (UTC)