PN forum stats

[lancek4]

it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

[thedoc]

it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

I think you are wildly overestimating the first 3 categories, but then you are possibly being polite.

[The Voice of Time]

Given the small base of permanently populated netizens here, I would say it's waaay to easy to point fingers with that statistic... we are... what, maybe a dozen people who average at least 1 post per week? (passive readers not included)

That's 3 people per category... except me of course, I have the special category of "reverent god of the philosophical" x) Thank you very much!!! <3

[lancek4]

Gods of philosophy are of course excluded from the statistics. And, perhaps I was being polite. But I do remember one person a while ago who was in here for a bit, who was very crass and insulting at idiocy, , but I found that eventually, even when I would call him an idiot or point out his idiocy that he would often defend, he would offer good discussion -- if you weren't an idiot.
So I guess maybe we could rack the stats into thirds?

[henry quirk]

So, we got...

Constructive Engagers

Honest Seekers

Philosophical Talkers

Confused Puppets

One Reverent God of the Philosophical

One Unmitigated and Indifferent Jackass (me)

Who (what) else?

[SpheresOfBalance]

it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

Actually I hate groupism, as I feel that as a generalization, it really doesn't say much, in the face of oh so much differentiation between us. But OK, I would not want to supply percentages, as if accurate, and I'm sure many more categories could be posited. But of course I catch your meaning. I tend to treat in kind usually, such that I could be seen as belonging to all, yet none of the categories, depending upon the instance.

Of course I would like to be seen as only belonging to the most respected category. The one of humble philosophic leanings, of ultimate psychological balance, of the most respectful tolerance of the differences between us, such that I could be extremely effectual at constructive commentary at all times, for all people. Sounds like a god to me, or at least my version.

[RickLewis]

Stats are tricky things. However, if any of you are Facebook users, you might be interested to know that Philosophy Now's Facebook page (which in some ways acts like a forum too) now has 306,697 likes.

https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyNow

We are quite pleased about that. It is one of the 2 or 3 most popular philosophy-related pages on Facebook.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm glad to hear it. I'd be proud too. So I won't go over there and make comments, as I wouldn't want to tarnish it's face.

[Blaggard]

Rick facebook likes are more meaningless than youtube likes and dislikes you go to a youtube page you find 126,367 people liked The Beatles Hey Jude, and 6841 disliked it, how many of those really liked or disliked, were on the usual facebook rampage to put at least 1 dislike on everything for shits and giggles, and 1 like for the same reason, or were just in a good or bad mood, don't like Mondays who knows, it's like using like x for anything, it's why reputation systems on forums don't work- people are just too fickle and they like what isn't always good for them or actually anything that really is what they feel. In and of it self it looks like the song is well liked and it may be, but it really says nothing at all about the user base of youtube which are for the most part a bit of a trollbase. Hell if it said anything about anything it would matter, but it's too narrow. Hey Personally how anyone could dislike The Beatles is beyond me and that is perhaps the point, I don't know what they like or dislike any of them.

If you want statistics to mean something I think you have to look more intrinsically than what some nobody thought on one day about anything. That said it is a significant number. But I personally would look deeper. User numbers, highest numbers of users ever on line, all meaningless. What you want to do is take a broad information base and look at it overall. I am sure you are not a moron and you do that, but saying your proud of likes is like saying you are proud of the square root of a number, it's just a number at the end of the day with very little relevance.

That said I like this forum, I haven't said that about a forum in a while. And whilst I have some dislikes I might perhaps opine you are on the right track. That is a hell of a lot more than a facking thumbs up that took 2 secs to do when the sun was shining, and that in itself means very little. Feel good, it's a positive, but underlying it is a load of nothingness that needs more than facile yey I like it. You can feel proud that no one likes you if the reasons are right.

Do you like good weather yes/no. Do you like philosophy yes/no. Who cares...

The most popular on Facebook is who it's not you, please, have you anal- ysed why? That is perhaps the point. It's just advertising shit, no one cares, they probably just have been around longer, have whored out their popularity and encourage their users to walk the streets for longer, put out a shed load of money to encourage in punters to sleep with their user base, their popularity means jack shit.

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."

Mark Twain.

He was right, that sort of ideology is the means of less astute analysts. One has to look for context.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Stats are tricky things. However, if any of you are Facebook users, you might be interested to know that Philosophy Now's Facebook page (which in some ways acts like a forum too) now has 306,697 likes.

https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyNow

We are quite pleased about that. It is one of the 2 or 3 most popular philosophy-related pages on Facebook.

That's amazing. I sometimes think I would like to up-thumb (like) a comment on here (not very often I must say), but there is no facility. I don't agree with the Youtube 'down thumb' though, because it gets abused a lot by fuckwits.

[Blaggard]

Well VT just pretty much summed up my whole post in one sentence.

Mind you I could of probably put it better, perhaps Facebook is a popularity whore based on the inane, it means nothing, meh too late now.

You really don't want a thumbs up thumbs down system on a forum it says more about who is liked than who makes good posts. The most hated person on the forum who always makes good and informed posts will look like an asshole, and the most facile yey let's all make friends pleb will look like the saviour of mankind. Reputation systems or even the less score based: thumbs up thumbs, down- be afraid, be very afraid of that beast of numpty you unleash. It might work and by no means am I sure, on a Justin Bieber fan site, but on a serious and integrity based philosophy forum, well it's like putting a loaded gun in the hands of a child...

[lancek4]

So, we got...

Constructive Engagers

Honest Seekers

Philosophical Talkers

Confused Puppets

One Reverent God of the Philosophical

One Unmitigated and Indifferent Jackass (me)

Who (what) else?

Ah kaay; I think we're getting some where.
Thirds it is.

We got the first two, which I think can be justifiably linked together; the second two, which might disrupt this statistical group in itself; and the the Gods and jackasses which defy all statistical grouping.

How we doin?

[henry quirk]

lance,

Break it down this way...

Constructive Seekers (or, just *'Seekers')

Philo-Puppets (or, **'Slaves')

Idiosyncrats (or, the ***Ill-Fitting)

Three groupings, loose enough to allow for overlap; tight enough to be recognized readily.







*the polar opposite of the Philo-Puppets

**those used by philosophy instead of the other way around; can apply to any one who elevates ideas to 'ideals'

***sometimes by choice; often by disposition

[HexHammer]

it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

LOL! You like so many other delusional babbeling and raving madmen doesn't know what they'r talking about.

Tragicly they accuse everybody but themseleves not to understand what they'r babbeling about.

Here's my view on l4's ramblings:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=13305&start=15#p173682

OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.

Everything is rave and babble.

OP? What is OP?

Can you tell me how or what specifically in my essay is unsound?

The instrumentality of reality is faith;

This quote alone shows:
- you don't understand the concept of relevance.
- you waste time on irrelevant things.
- you say things in a too weird way, that has nothing to do with how intelligent people should precieve things.
- faith has nothing to do with reality in itself.
- this is supersticious nonsense and babble.
- anyone writing such babble wouldn't be hired in any seious buisness, or fired right away as it would scare away customers and investors.

..what kind of job does one such as you have?

all forms of veto stem from the resistance, innate to the individual, to have reality find solution. The condition of reality thereby posits no solution but through faith, which I call ‘conventional faith’, and this insolute situation that requires faith is founded upon the True Object. The True Object is the basis of having reality, and the motion of reality, called progress, is toward the absolutely True object. Reality thereby determines that the individual human being should find the Truth through the terms of reality, and this is to say that the terms are seen to reflect or otherwise show what the True object may be and thus presents the route or method by which the individual may find solution; the solution found through conventional faith is called identity.

..rest is also completely incoherent babble and nonsense.

[SpheresOfBalance]

it seems from my extensive experience on this forum that 25% indeed have a capacity to engage constructively. I'd say roughly another 25% are those who are still seeking honestly. Maybe another quarter are stuck in 'talking philosophically', and the last quarter merely confused puppets who only want to spread their discontent.


Any comment on those rough sociological stats?

LOL! You like so many other delusional babbeling and raving madmen doesn't know what they'r talking about.

Tragicly they accuse everybody but themseleves not to understand what they'r babbeling about.

Here's my view on l4's ramblings:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=13305&start=15#p173682

OP is pure ramblings, not a tiny bit of sound thinking.

Everything is rave and babble.

OP? What is OP?

Can you tell me how or what specifically in my essay is unsound?

The instrumentality of reality is faith;

This quote alone shows:
- you don't understand the concept of relevance.
- you waste time on irrelevant things.
- you say things in a too weird way, that has nothing to do with how intelligent people should precieve things.
- faith has nothing to do with reality in itself.
- this is supersticious nonsense and babble.
- anyone writing such babble wouldn't be hired in any seious buisness, or fired right away as it would scare away customers and investors.

..what kind of job does one such as you have?

all forms of veto stem from the resistance, innate to the individual, to have reality find solution. The condition of reality thereby posits no solution but through faith, which I call ‘conventional faith’, and this insolute situation that requires faith is founded upon the True Object. The True Object is the basis of having reality, and the motion of reality, called progress, is toward the absolutely True object. Reality thereby determines that the individual human being should find the Truth through the terms of reality, and this is to say that the terms are seen to reflect or otherwise show what the True object may be and thus presents the route or method by which the individual may find solution; the solution found through conventional faith is called identity.

..rest is also completely incoherent babble and nonsense.

The consummate idiot that would rather demean than to seek understanding through question.

I've always been known to stop and ask for directions, pride takes a back seat, to actually getting somewhere!