MeFite authors meet their critics February 29, 2012 7:37 PM Subscribe
Two articles by MeFites have been scrutinized rather closely in Metafilter threads in the last few days, and the authors of the pieces have participated in the threads: Maias's "The Link Between Adult Obesity and Childhood Trauma" and YoungAmerican's "Make Your Thing".
The interplay between the authors and their critics was interesting.
The interplay between the authors and their critics was interesting.
Actually YoungAmerican got a much more thoughtful reception compared to Maias:
Well, that's unfortunate because I cannot avoid expressing how this article exemplifies almost everything that is bad about contemporary science reporting to the general audience. It's a fucking terrible article that basically everyone should avoid reading because it's most likely to, on balance, result in a reduction of comprehension of the natural world, not an increase.I thought Maias handled those inflammatory statements with class:
And second: Yikes!!! I'd like the person who accused me of getting epigenetics wrong to point to a specific, incorrect sentence or concept in my article. I work very hard to avoid doing "bad pop sci journalism" and so, if I have inadvertently produced such a work, I'd like to know *exactly* what I got wrong so I can avoid doing so again.posted by euphorb at 10:05 PM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'm eagerly awaiting Ivan Fyodorovich's response to her request for a specific, incorrect sentence or concept in her article.
posted by jayder at 10:14 PM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by jayder at 10:14 PM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]
Then I would have to read bad science journalism again, and I'm putting that off.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:34 PM on February 29, 2012
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:34 PM on February 29, 2012
You could always respond to xarnop's criticisms as well (with something other than condescension.)
posted by kagredon at 10:40 PM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by kagredon at 10:40 PM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
It's amazing, Ivan, the degree of work and care you put into scoring points in that thread, even citing studies and so forth, and yet ...
When asked politely by the author of the piece under discussion for a single example of something wrong in her "fucking terrible" article (your words), you refuse ... scornfully.
What's your deal?
posted by jayder at 10:50 PM on February 29, 2012 [14 favorites]
When asked politely by the author of the piece under discussion for a single example of something wrong in her "fucking terrible" article (your words), you refuse ... scornfully.
What's your deal?
posted by jayder at 10:50 PM on February 29, 2012 [14 favorites]
It seems to me that participants in the Thorn thread got fixated on his ironic title to the degree that they had a hard time address the substance of his article. There's probably a lesson there in not titling things ironically, but his piece mostly consisted of a list of people who had some success pursuing the sort of thing they like doing, and factors that Thorn thought contributed to that success. Not a terrible subject for an article, even if following these suggestions won't actually guarantee a thousand percent success rate.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:54 PM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:54 PM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]
"What's your deal?"
Because I had already written this (first quoting someone else):
I wasn't "point-scoring" (a characterization that indicates that you're not actually interested in anything I might say in a response to Maias), I was involved in an exchange that dealt specifically and in detail with what was my one specific criticism of Maias's piece.
"You could always respond to xarnop's criticisms as well (with something other than condescension.)"
I did. That was an extended discussion that resulted from my complaint that the writer implied lamarckianism to a naive audience. xarnop defended lamarckianism specifically; and then there was a long exchange involving several people particularly about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, with citations.
A science writer can throw a bunch of entirely correct sentences and concepts in an article and still produce something that is poor journalism that is very misleading about the science involved. In fact, this is more the rule than the exception.
My larger complaint, which was not just implied, but made explicit in my first comment, is that this article exemplified bad science journalism in that it dealt with a provocative topic (in this case, two: childhood trauma and obesity), titillates the reader with how Science Explains This, usually in a simplistic and reductive fashion, paints a picture of a scientific consensus that doesn't exist, and utilizes specific research for the article's credibility without including the researcher's numerous qualifications and cautions. It's not that any one thing is untrue, it's that it's a gross misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. This forms 90% of all popular science journalism and it's why the public both enjoys it and yet has learned to distrust it—because every year brings numerous reports of revolutionary new breakthroughs, paradigm-shifting revelations, many of which contradict similar stories from just a few years before.
Here is the actual useful content of that article: a researcher found a reliable correlation between childhood trauma and adult obesity. One possible causal relationship involved could relate to stress response and altered diet/metabolism, which has been known to be an epigenetic effect in laboratory animals, and which theoretically could involve transgenerational epigenetic effects and thus could be passed down intergenerationally, though this has been only seen in a few, controlled laboratory conditions that don't even involve mammals. There are a few famous population studies that show an intergenerational correlation between dietary stress and altered metabolism which might involve the previously mentioned things.
Phrased in this straightforward manner, this is far more tentative and speculative than the article implies. I'm not even including all the cautions and contextualization that would be necessary to present the previous information in a way that actually explained any real science to the reader while simultaneously making it clear how tentative and speculative this all really is.
In my original comment, while I was harsh, I made a point of placing the ultimate blame on the editors and publishers, not the writers. Science journalism as it should be done doesn't sell magazines. An article written such as I just described would be simultaneously too technical and, worse, too cautious and with a too-narrow scope to be of interest to the general audience.
And about the fact that Maias is a mefite...the problem here is that there are a whole hell of a lot of writers who are mefites. I agree that in a direct interaction, an extra degree of civility is called for. But metafilter threads are often harshly critical of the content of linked content, and often rightly so. All other things being equal, when the writers of that content happen to be mefites, they shouldn't get favorable treatment. When they actually participate in the thread? Sure. Otherwise? No.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:36 PM on February 29, 2012
Because I had already written this (first quoting someone else):
"I guess I was just surprised to see such a strong negative reaction, since I thought this article did a lot of things right for a pop science column. Obviously, reasonable people can disagree."...before Maias posted her comment.
Bad pop science journalism is a very hot-button topic for me and it's entirely possible that I overreacted to this article. I promise I'll read it again in a day or two and see if I form a different impression.
I wasn't "point-scoring" (a characterization that indicates that you're not actually interested in anything I might say in a response to Maias), I was involved in an exchange that dealt specifically and in detail with what was my one specific criticism of Maias's piece.
"You could always respond to xarnop's criticisms as well (with something other than condescension.)"
I did. That was an extended discussion that resulted from my complaint that the writer implied lamarckianism to a naive audience. xarnop defended lamarckianism specifically; and then there was a long exchange involving several people particularly about transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, with citations.
A science writer can throw a bunch of entirely correct sentences and concepts in an article and still produce something that is poor journalism that is very misleading about the science involved. In fact, this is more the rule than the exception.
My larger complaint, which was not just implied, but made explicit in my first comment, is that this article exemplified bad science journalism in that it dealt with a provocative topic (in this case, two: childhood trauma and obesity), titillates the reader with how Science Explains This, usually in a simplistic and reductive fashion, paints a picture of a scientific consensus that doesn't exist, and utilizes specific research for the article's credibility without including the researcher's numerous qualifications and cautions. It's not that any one thing is untrue, it's that it's a gross misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. This forms 90% of all popular science journalism and it's why the public both enjoys it and yet has learned to distrust it—because every year brings numerous reports of revolutionary new breakthroughs, paradigm-shifting revelations, many of which contradict similar stories from just a few years before.
Here is the actual useful content of that article: a researcher found a reliable correlation between childhood trauma and adult obesity. One possible causal relationship involved could relate to stress response and altered diet/metabolism, which has been known to be an epigenetic effect in laboratory animals, and which theoretically could involve transgenerational epigenetic effects and thus could be passed down intergenerationally, though this has been only seen in a few, controlled laboratory conditions that don't even involve mammals. There are a few famous population studies that show an intergenerational correlation between dietary stress and altered metabolism which might involve the previously mentioned things.
Phrased in this straightforward manner, this is far more tentative and speculative than the article implies. I'm not even including all the cautions and contextualization that would be necessary to present the previous information in a way that actually explained any real science to the reader while simultaneously making it clear how tentative and speculative this all really is.
In my original comment, while I was harsh, I made a point of placing the ultimate blame on the editors and publishers, not the writers. Science journalism as it should be done doesn't sell magazines. An article written such as I just described would be simultaneously too technical and, worse, too cautious and with a too-narrow scope to be of interest to the general audience.
And about the fact that Maias is a mefite...the problem here is that there are a whole hell of a lot of writers who are mefites. I agree that in a direct interaction, an extra degree of civility is called for. But metafilter threads are often harshly critical of the content of linked content, and often rightly so. All other things being equal, when the writers of that content happen to be mefites, they shouldn't get favorable treatment. When they actually participate in the thread? Sure. Otherwise? No.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:36 PM on February 29, 2012
I wasn't "point-scoring" (a characterization that indicates that you're not actually interested in anything I might say in a response to Maias)
How does that characterization indicate that?
posted by jayder at 11:46 PM on February 29, 2012
How does that characterization indicate that?
posted by jayder at 11:46 PM on February 29, 2012
Phrased in this straightforward manner, this is far more tentative and speculative than the article implies.
And yet the journalist here is interviewing and quoting actual scientists -- the people responsible for the study. Presumably she's also reading their quotes back to them to check for accuracy.
Clearly you don't feel there's an obligation on the scientists themselves to ensure that what the journalist writes accurately reflects the science?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:56 PM on February 29, 2012
And yet the journalist here is interviewing and quoting actual scientists -- the people responsible for the study. Presumably she's also reading their quotes back to them to check for accuracy.
Clearly you don't feel there's an obligation on the scientists themselves to ensure that what the journalist writes accurately reflects the science?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:56 PM on February 29, 2012
Yeesh. I've been linked to on MetaFilter a couple of times, and I think what I've taken away from that is not to read any thread in which you are linked (a) and not to reply in any thread etc (b). Somebody or -bodies is always going to think what you've written is meritless/douchey/TOTALLY BIAS AND WRONG, and if you reply you are always going to come off as oversensitive.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:04 AM on March 1, 2012
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:04 AM on March 1, 2012
I AM NOT BEING OVERSENSITIVE.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:33 AM on March 1, 2012
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:33 AM on March 1, 2012
Part of me thinks that once you put something out in the world, you have to just let it go, and that's your problem. I tell myself that every day. But another part of me thinks that a lot of mefites come to articles with such deeply cut prejudices that it's poisoning the well of reasonable conversation.
I'm starting to have MeFite opinion fatigue.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 5:06 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
I'm starting to have MeFite opinion fatigue.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 5:06 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
Phrased in this straightforward manner, this is far more tentative and speculative than the article implies.
Perhaps, but a criticism that points that out is also something that can be discussed, while "fucking terrible" is not.
posted by OmieWise at 5:12 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
Perhaps, but a criticism that points that out is also something that can be discussed, while "fucking terrible" is not.
posted by OmieWise at 5:12 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
It has been interesting watching the different forms of author interaction in these and previous threads. The most positive seem to be the ones who come in, say hi, add some detail and maybe answer some questions, but avoid getting embroiled in nasty back and forth exchanges. Allowing people to simply be wrong is perhaps easier said than done, but I think it's an important part of coming out looking good.
posted by Forktine at 5:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Forktine at 5:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [2 favorites]
Hogging the microphone is not the same thing as conversation, and it's lately becoming increasingly tiresome. The fascinating world of you is considerably less fascinating to others, particularly when expressed at such prodigious length. Do people really expect others to read 2000+ word comments at the rate of way way too many per thread? What utterly blind self-importance. Is this communication or masturbation? The question is serious.
posted by Wolof at 5:43 AM on March 1, 2012 [7 favorites]
posted by Wolof at 5:43 AM on March 1, 2012 [7 favorites]
Why can't it be both? Hell, throw in a species-curious gorilla and you've got a party!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:47 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:47 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
And about the fact that Maias is a mefite...the problem here is that there are a whole hell of a lot of writers who are mefites. I agree that in a direct interaction, an extra degree of civility is called for. But metafilter threads are often harshly critical of the content of linked content, and often rightly so. All other things being equal, when the writers of that content happen to be mefites, they shouldn't get favorable treatment. When they actually participate in the thread? Sure. Otherwise? No.
In a previous MeTa posted when David Graeber showed up in a post about him, we had a fairly long discussion about how we present ourselves when the subject of a post shows up. Now, the Maias post a slightly different kettle of fish, as the poster in question was already a member at the time it was posted, but I think most of the takeaways are applicable to both scenarios.
I completely agree with the idea that, when the subject of a post shows up, we should make the effort to not be complete assbags. I guess where you and I differ is what this means in the larger sense, and what we can learn from it. For me, (and I mentioned this in that previous MeTa) the lesson learned from "you never know when the author might show up" isn't "Oops! Sorry! I didn't stop being an asshole quickly enough when you showed up!" Rather, it's "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be an asshole in the first place, regardless of whether or not the creator shows up!"
I don't mean to imply that you're being an asshole or your behavior is assholish, BTW, it's just shorthand for the larger issue. I realize it's impossible for us to actually stop being viciously critical across the board, but I really think we could all benefit from keeping an eye on our default settings here.
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:15 AM on March 1, 2012
In a previous MeTa posted when David Graeber showed up in a post about him, we had a fairly long discussion about how we present ourselves when the subject of a post shows up. Now, the Maias post a slightly different kettle of fish, as the poster in question was already a member at the time it was posted, but I think most of the takeaways are applicable to both scenarios.
I completely agree with the idea that, when the subject of a post shows up, we should make the effort to not be complete assbags. I guess where you and I differ is what this means in the larger sense, and what we can learn from it. For me, (and I mentioned this in that previous MeTa) the lesson learned from "you never know when the author might show up" isn't "Oops! Sorry! I didn't stop being an asshole quickly enough when you showed up!" Rather, it's "Hey, maybe I shouldn't be an asshole in the first place, regardless of whether or not the creator shows up!"
I don't mean to imply that you're being an asshole or your behavior is assholish, BTW, it's just shorthand for the larger issue. I realize it's impossible for us to actually stop being viciously critical across the board, but I really think we could all benefit from keeping an eye on our default settings here.
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:15 AM on March 1, 2012
(I dropped out of that Graeber thread when he appeared, because it looked like it was going to turn into a huge fight, and I'm actually really heartened by going back and seeing that people took the time to tell him essentially what was happening, both with the thread and with him, and everything went back to an even keel pretty quickly.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:45 AM on March 1, 2012
posted by running order squabble fest at 6:45 AM on March 1, 2012
I'm starting to have MeFite opinion fatigue.
We had another nice little two-minute hate last week over an article by Andrew Bacevich, who is by the account of a friend who has worked with him a complete mensch, and who writes on U.S. foreign policy from a perspective that I suspect many of the MeFites in that very thread would broadly, if not totally, agree with. I kept praying he wouldn't show up in-thread.
I've often been proud to be a part of this community, but lately it seems like there are a lot of weird dick-sizing contests masquerading as threads.
posted by gauche at 6:52 AM on March 1, 2012
We had another nice little two-minute hate last week over an article by Andrew Bacevich, who is by the account of a friend who has worked with him a complete mensch, and who writes on U.S. foreign policy from a perspective that I suspect many of the MeFites in that very thread would broadly, if not totally, agree with. I kept praying he wouldn't show up in-thread.
I've often been proud to be a part of this community, but lately it seems like there are a lot of weird dick-sizing contests masquerading as threads.
posted by gauche at 6:52 AM on March 1, 2012
It seems to me that participants in the Thorn thread got fixated on his ironic title to the degree that they had a hard time address the substance of his article.
There is truth to that. I think the title makes the very point that the critics of the article seem to be trying to make: no one has the "answer." Jesse would be the first to agree, but it's a generous act to try and share what you have learned so that others may benefit from it.
Basically, title notwithstanding, some people just like to bitch, and seem to be deficient in the sense-of-humor category.
A very similar thing happened in the Metatalk thread offering a free scholarship to Jesse's MaxFunCon. People found all sorts of reasons to shit on it, from the description of the event on the website ("a gathering of creative people who wish to be more awesome") to the fact that the registration cost was gifted, but not airfare or transportation, to splitting hairs over the definition of "financial need"!
I commented quite a bit in that thread, and sometimes it felt pointless and frustrating. But it ended up as one of the best MeFi-related stories I ever had.
Some people expressed concern that they didn't want to waste their time writing an essay if they couldn't afford airfare. I left this comment:
So, despite the negativity, for whatever reason, about Jesse's article and insight, I trust that it will make a differenece in people's lives. We are all tuned in to different things at different times. Anyone who doesn't like the article, or Jesse, or the people he used as examples, or doesn't like the way he dresses, or whatever is welcome to ignore all of it.
As I said in the MaxFunCon thread: if you don't get it, it's not for you. There are more things in the world that are not for me than there are for me. I try not stress over the former.
posted by The Deej at 7:01 AM on March 1, 2012 [7 favorites]
There is truth to that. I think the title makes the very point that the critics of the article seem to be trying to make: no one has the "answer." Jesse would be the first to agree, but it's a generous act to try and share what you have learned so that others may benefit from it.
Basically, title notwithstanding, some people just like to bitch, and seem to be deficient in the sense-of-humor category.
A very similar thing happened in the Metatalk thread offering a free scholarship to Jesse's MaxFunCon. People found all sorts of reasons to shit on it, from the description of the event on the website ("a gathering of creative people who wish to be more awesome") to the fact that the registration cost was gifted, but not airfare or transportation, to splitting hairs over the definition of "financial need"!
I commented quite a bit in that thread, and sometimes it felt pointless and frustrating. But it ended up as one of the best MeFi-related stories I ever had.
Some people expressed concern that they didn't want to waste their time writing an essay if they couldn't afford airfare. I left this comment:
I would encourage anyone to take the first step and send in an essay. You never know how the rest of it might work out. I can tell you from my nearly-old-man experience, that some of the best things happened in my life because I took the first step even when the way looked impossible. Don't quit before you've even started.After the scholarships were awarded I received a very nice email from a someone I had never met. She had won the scholarship. She told me that she wasn't going to try, but that my comment encouraged her and she entered on the last day of the deadline. It was extrememly gratifying to know that a simple comment could have an actual result in someone's life and I was thrilled and happy to meet her at MaxFunCon.
So, despite the negativity, for whatever reason, about Jesse's article and insight, I trust that it will make a differenece in people's lives. We are all tuned in to different things at different times. Anyone who doesn't like the article, or Jesse, or the people he used as examples, or doesn't like the way he dresses, or whatever is welcome to ignore all of it.
As I said in the MaxFunCon thread: if you don't get it, it's not for you. There are more things in the world that are not for me than there are for me. I try not stress over the former.
posted by The Deej at 7:01 AM on March 1, 2012 [7 favorites]
But another part of me thinks that a lot of mefites come to articles with such deeply cut prejudices that it's poisoning the well of reasonable conversation.
Part of it is prejudice, but I think more of it is the desire to be the person who is so damn smart that they can easily see the flaws in someone else's work and trumpet them to the world, or so damn cultured that they rise above the bourgeois interests of lesser mortals. (See the Avengers thread discussion.) Post a science-related article and it can quickly become a race to see who can eviscerate it the most quickly and the most thoroughly. Way too often threads on the blue devolve into gleeful nit-picking or indifferent dismissal ("meh"). I'm sure I've given into the temptation myself on occasion, but has become tedious to see Metafilter become a rhetorical chainsaw that slices and dices anything in its way. If you're a masochistic author who privately delights in being told how conventional, stupid and unenlightened you are, the best thing that could happen to you is to have someone link to your work on the blue. My mental picture of the site is a classroom of gifted teenagers where a third of them are sunk into their iPods, rolling their eyes at the world, a third are debating minutia and missing the bigger point, and a third are trying to have a serious conversation, but are having a hard time not being distracted by the shouters or frustrated by the terminally disengaged.
I often feel like the people who bitch the loudest about some article's flaws would probably enjoy it or learn something from it in another context, but in the great game of Metafilter, they have joined the ranks of the persistent nay-sayers, and they can't read anything here without racing to see how many flaws they can find, or how many things can be misread or twisted into being flaws, or just broadly dismissed without even giving a reason.
I'm certainly not opposed to critical engagement, and there's no virtue in just accepting anything presented here. But there's a kind of relentless intellectual hostility that is an unhealthy vice of the mind equal to blithe acceptance, though its opposite.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:10 AM on March 1, 2012 [12 favorites]
Part of it is prejudice, but I think more of it is the desire to be the person who is so damn smart that they can easily see the flaws in someone else's work and trumpet them to the world, or so damn cultured that they rise above the bourgeois interests of lesser mortals. (See the Avengers thread discussion.) Post a science-related article and it can quickly become a race to see who can eviscerate it the most quickly and the most thoroughly. Way too often threads on the blue devolve into gleeful nit-picking or indifferent dismissal ("meh"). I'm sure I've given into the temptation myself on occasion, but has become tedious to see Metafilter become a rhetorical chainsaw that slices and dices anything in its way. If you're a masochistic author who privately delights in being told how conventional, stupid and unenlightened you are, the best thing that could happen to you is to have someone link to your work on the blue. My mental picture of the site is a classroom of gifted teenagers where a third of them are sunk into their iPods, rolling their eyes at the world, a third are debating minutia and missing the bigger point, and a third are trying to have a serious conversation, but are having a hard time not being distracted by the shouters or frustrated by the terminally disengaged.
I often feel like the people who bitch the loudest about some article's flaws would probably enjoy it or learn something from it in another context, but in the great game of Metafilter, they have joined the ranks of the persistent nay-sayers, and they can't read anything here without racing to see how many flaws they can find, or how many things can be misread or twisted into being flaws, or just broadly dismissed without even giving a reason.
I'm certainly not opposed to critical engagement, and there's no virtue in just accepting anything presented here. But there's a kind of relentless intellectual hostility that is an unhealthy vice of the mind equal to blithe acceptance, though its opposite.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:10 AM on March 1, 2012 [12 favorites]
Part of it is prejudice, but I think more of it is the desire to be the person who is so damn smart that they can easily see the flaws in someone else's work and trumpet them to the world, or so damn cultured that they rise above the bourgeois interests of lesser mortals.
Also, this is an old forum. With a lot of people who have had these arguments a lot of times and have developed a lot of reflexes. And if you've been going to the same place over and over again for four or six or eight or ten years (looks at own user ID, sighs in disappointment) that speaks to a certain close-mindedness which becomes a major part of the larger site's personality.
posted by furiousthought at 7:23 AM on March 1, 2012
Also, this is an old forum. With a lot of people who have had these arguments a lot of times and have developed a lot of reflexes. And if you've been going to the same place over and over again for four or six or eight or ten years (looks at own user ID, sighs in disappointment) that speaks to a certain close-mindedness which becomes a major part of the larger site's personality.
posted by furiousthought at 7:23 AM on March 1, 2012
Sounds to me like there are a number of people around here who want to turn this place into Boing Boing. MetaFilter should be a place to uncritically promote our friend's projects. If you read something that turns out not to apply to you, you shoud not have read it. If you read something that you disagree with, please keep it to yourself. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Because we only want affirmation around here now. Go team! If this is the direction we are headed, somebody should please say so now. Because there's another misleading title that needs to be discussed. MetaFilter.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
If this is the direction we are headed, somebody should please say so now.
No, it isn't. There are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between slavish fanboyism and constructive criticism, and just taking a dump on something because you're in a bad mood or you have poor social skills. We've always, always, been fine with people not liking things, but when it turns into a situation where it seems like a lot of people are just gleefully pissing on something that someone else worked hard at [and that other people appreciate] it turns into an awkward situation for MetaFilter in general.
I dislike the knee-jerk "Oh so we can only say nice things?!" response to this sort of discussion because I think people are wilfully ignoring the large number of people who manage to respond to something either positively or negatively while still being mindful of the way those responses will impact the other people in the thread, some of whom may be creators of the content.
Most comments are totally fine. There is a grey area in the middle where people have differing opinions about whether someone is being too critical of something that other people like. Then there are the comments that show up on the far side of our "don't be an asshole" guideline. It's fine to talk about where that line should be in the middle area. It's totally fine to not like Jesse or the things he creates, but some people, a small minority, just seemed to be being weirdly assholish without any sort of regard for the fact that there were a mixed group of people who liked and didn't like the article for various reasons and that Jesse was right there.
People who are unable to see the world except through their own narrow lens and then insist that their way is the only correct way to look at things make threads sort of tiresome, for me. So I made a few comments and then just unfollowed it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2012 [5 favorites]
No, it isn't. There are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between slavish fanboyism and constructive criticism, and just taking a dump on something because you're in a bad mood or you have poor social skills. We've always, always, been fine with people not liking things, but when it turns into a situation where it seems like a lot of people are just gleefully pissing on something that someone else worked hard at [and that other people appreciate] it turns into an awkward situation for MetaFilter in general.
I dislike the knee-jerk "Oh so we can only say nice things?!" response to this sort of discussion because I think people are wilfully ignoring the large number of people who manage to respond to something either positively or negatively while still being mindful of the way those responses will impact the other people in the thread, some of whom may be creators of the content.
Most comments are totally fine. There is a grey area in the middle where people have differing opinions about whether someone is being too critical of something that other people like. Then there are the comments that show up on the far side of our "don't be an asshole" guideline. It's fine to talk about where that line should be in the middle area. It's totally fine to not like Jesse or the things he creates, but some people, a small minority, just seemed to be being weirdly assholish without any sort of regard for the fact that there were a mixed group of people who liked and didn't like the article for various reasons and that Jesse was right there.
People who are unable to see the world except through their own narrow lens and then insist that their way is the only correct way to look at things make threads sort of tiresome, for me. So I made a few comments and then just unfollowed it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2012 [5 favorites]
I'm responding in part to this...
if you don't get it, it's not for you
...and in part to the Jesse Thorn thread, itself, where Jesse actually argued that if we didn't like it we shouldn't have even read it, and if we did read it and didn't like it, we shouldn't have commented on it. And the same people who defended that stance there, are right back here complaining about the haters again.
And then I'm just saying that I have noticed, long before either of these threads came up, a growing propensity on the site to scold people who come into a thread with negative things to say about the subject. Now maybe that's just confirmation bias on my part. It's no secret that I can sometimes be a dick. But I don't think that's all there is to it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about mod policy. I'm talking about the user base. I'm talking about that grey area you mentioned where some people seem to think any criticism is too much. And I'm saying that I feel like there's maybe a culture shift in the user base here that is increasingly leaning to that side. If so, I'd like to hear from them.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
if you don't get it, it's not for you
...and in part to the Jesse Thorn thread, itself, where Jesse actually argued that if we didn't like it we shouldn't have even read it, and if we did read it and didn't like it, we shouldn't have commented on it. And the same people who defended that stance there, are right back here complaining about the haters again.
And then I'm just saying that I have noticed, long before either of these threads came up, a growing propensity on the site to scold people who come into a thread with negative things to say about the subject. Now maybe that's just confirmation bias on my part. It's no secret that I can sometimes be a dick. But I don't think that's all there is to it.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about mod policy. I'm talking about the user base. I'm talking about that grey area you mentioned where some people seem to think any criticism is too much. And I'm saying that I feel like there's maybe a culture shift in the user base here that is increasingly leaning to that side. If so, I'd like to hear from them.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
though this has been only seen in a few, controlled laboratory conditions that don't even involve mammals.
To nitpick, these effects have been seen in rats and mice (see here and here), which are mammals.
More broadly, I think presenting science that is still being worked out is actually an important part of science journalism. I think we probably agree that those parts shouldn't be oversold, but I think you do need to put findings in context, both with what has gone before and with what people are currently interested in now.
To take this piece specifically, the major conclusions were that 1) the effects of child abuse endure into adulthood and targeting children for increased care may therefore be a good strategy for public health, and 2) that abuse can have a multigenerational legacy. Neither of these seem particularly controversial or over-reaching to me. I also don't think either conclusion hinges on some specific fact about epigenetics. I read that part of the discussion more as showing that there are some precedents for thinking about the results of stressful life events in terms of molecular mechanism, as well as behavior.
I totally understand being frustrated with fast-and-loose science journalism -- there's a lot of it out there. But I think there's a big difference between adding context along the lines of "here is how some scientists are approaching this problem," which I think is totally appropriate, and then concluding that Republicans are stupider than Democrats or that women are programmed to love shopping or something.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
To nitpick, these effects have been seen in rats and mice (see here and here), which are mammals.
More broadly, I think presenting science that is still being worked out is actually an important part of science journalism. I think we probably agree that those parts shouldn't be oversold, but I think you do need to put findings in context, both with what has gone before and with what people are currently interested in now.
To take this piece specifically, the major conclusions were that 1) the effects of child abuse endure into adulthood and targeting children for increased care may therefore be a good strategy for public health, and 2) that abuse can have a multigenerational legacy. Neither of these seem particularly controversial or over-reaching to me. I also don't think either conclusion hinges on some specific fact about epigenetics. I read that part of the discussion more as showing that there are some precedents for thinking about the results of stressful life events in terms of molecular mechanism, as well as behavior.
I totally understand being frustrated with fast-and-loose science journalism -- there's a lot of it out there. But I think there's a big difference between adding context along the lines of "here is how some scientists are approaching this problem," which I think is totally appropriate, and then concluding that Republicans are stupider than Democrats or that women are programmed to love shopping or something.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
Personally, I think it makes sense to differentiate between being respectful to subjects of posts when they're involved in the threads, and being respectful to subjects of posts when they're not present but happen to be mefites, and being respectul to subjects of posts when they're not present and not mefites. I totally think the last is nuts, the second is hypocritical (if we don't do the last), and the first is entirely reasonable and a good thing.
I'm unconvinced that this isn't likely the general sentiment here, anyway. We're not going to start being respectful and never harsh about all subjects; and I think it's both unlikely that we'll develop a community ethos to check if a subject is a mefite and alter our discussion merely on that basis...nor do I think we should. And I do think pretty much everyone, with apparently some exceptions evidenced in the Jesse Thorn thread (which I didn't read), agree that we should be nice to subjects when they show up to participate in the discussion.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:47 AM on March 1, 2012
I'm unconvinced that this isn't likely the general sentiment here, anyway. We're not going to start being respectful and never harsh about all subjects; and I think it's both unlikely that we'll develop a community ethos to check if a subject is a mefite and alter our discussion merely on that basis...nor do I think we should. And I do think pretty much everyone, with apparently some exceptions evidenced in the Jesse Thorn thread (which I didn't read), agree that we should be nice to subjects when they show up to participate in the discussion.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:47 AM on March 1, 2012
That's just it, though: I don't remember anybody being disrespectful to Jesse. There were people who took exception to certain things he wrote, and even a few who took exception to pretty much everything he wrote, but I don't remember anybody actually being disrespectful to Jesse, on a personal level at all, unless we are implying that criticism itself is inherently disresptful. There were definitely a few colorful comments about the subject of Jesse's article, but really only a very few in such a large thread, and to my memory, they weren't even directed at Jesse at all. Yet that thread has been described as people pissing all over Jesse's article.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:04 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:04 AM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
Actually, you know what? Forget I said anything. I'm probably just dragging my own shit here, again. When all you have is a shit hammer, the whole world looks like shit. I'm going to step away for awhile. Sorry.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:24 AM on March 1, 2012
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:24 AM on March 1, 2012
being respectul to subjects of posts when they're not present and not mefites. I totally think [this] is nuts
Wait, you think being respectful to the subjects of posts (i.e., things and people who, almost by definition, did not ask to be scrutinized by MetaFilter) is, absent a few conditions, nuts?
posted by gauche at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
Wait, you think being respectful to the subjects of posts (i.e., things and people who, almost by definition, did not ask to be scrutinized by MetaFilter) is, absent a few conditions, nuts?
posted by gauche at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
Hogging the microphone is not the same thing as conversation, and it's lately becoming increasingly tiresome. The fascinating world of you is considerably less fascinating to others, particularly when expressed at such prodigious length. Do people really expect others to read 2000+ word comments at the rate of way way too many per thread? What utterly blind self-importance. Is this communication or masturbation? The question is serious.
I just don't get this "hogging the microphone" attitude.
I completely agree with you that plenty of people think they are way more fascinating than they are. And often their opinions are boring/annoying/etc.
But there is no microphone. It's not like only one person can post at a time; it's not like one person has to stop posting before the next can post. Nobody is being forced to read the comments of the annoying people. Or reply to them or pay them any mind at all!
So what's with all the complaining? What's with this attitude that some people have to stop posting before others can have the threads they want?
Pater Aletheias said something similar:
My mental picture of the site is a classroom of gifted teenagers where a third of them are sunk into their iPods, rolling their eyes at the world, a third are debating minutia and missing the bigger point, and a third are trying to have a serious conversation, but are having a hard time not being distracted by the shouters or frustrated by the terminally disengaged.
You are awesome Pater Aletheias so please don't take this as a personal attack or anything, I just want to speak to this idea itself.
This is written text on the internet, not speech in a classroom. In a RL classroom, you can't hear over other people shouting or talking. On the internet, you can still read the text you find interesting with no problems no matter how many other people wrote text you don't find interesting.
If it's that distracting and frustrating when someone is Wrong On The Internet, it seems like the solution there is just continuing to practice ignoring it when someone is Wrong On The Internet.
Maybe this is a generational thing.
posted by cairdeas at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2012
I just don't get this "hogging the microphone" attitude.
I completely agree with you that plenty of people think they are way more fascinating than they are. And often their opinions are boring/annoying/etc.
But there is no microphone. It's not like only one person can post at a time; it's not like one person has to stop posting before the next can post. Nobody is being forced to read the comments of the annoying people. Or reply to them or pay them any mind at all!
So what's with all the complaining? What's with this attitude that some people have to stop posting before others can have the threads they want?
Pater Aletheias said something similar:
My mental picture of the site is a classroom of gifted teenagers where a third of them are sunk into their iPods, rolling their eyes at the world, a third are debating minutia and missing the bigger point, and a third are trying to have a serious conversation, but are having a hard time not being distracted by the shouters or frustrated by the terminally disengaged.
You are awesome Pater Aletheias so please don't take this as a personal attack or anything, I just want to speak to this idea itself.
This is written text on the internet, not speech in a classroom. In a RL classroom, you can't hear over other people shouting or talking. On the internet, you can still read the text you find interesting with no problems no matter how many other people wrote text you don't find interesting.
If it's that distracting and frustrating when someone is Wrong On The Internet, it seems like the solution there is just continuing to practice ignoring it when someone is Wrong On The Internet.
Maybe this is a generational thing.
posted by cairdeas at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2012
I think what I've taken away from that is not to read any thread in which you are linked (a) and not to reply in any thread etc (b).
This is good advice for anyone who's ever created anything, and not just for MetaFilter either. Arguing with your critics (almost) never ends well.
posted by asterix at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
This is good advice for anyone who's ever created anything, and not just for MetaFilter either. Arguing with your critics (almost) never ends well.
posted by asterix at 11:40 AM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
Not reading the comments on the website most of my work appears on is a daily exercise in self-loathing and restraint. Sometimes it goes much better than others.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 12:37 PM on March 1, 2012
posted by to sir with millipedes at 12:37 PM on March 1, 2012
As for long comments like Ivan and the other user who's name I forgot, I just never read them. I can't imagine something important can take that much text to get across.
Also, who types that much for a website? My work output is that wordy, if not more so, but I don't care to put that much effort into a metafilter comment, and I admit I am baffled by people that do. Whatever, to each their own. I'm just glad I don't have to wade through the wall of text. I imagine a distopia where you are required to completely read each and every comment.
posted by fuq at 1:01 PM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
Also, who types that much for a website? My work output is that wordy, if not more so, but I don't care to put that much effort into a metafilter comment, and I admit I am baffled by people that do. Whatever, to each their own. I'm just glad I don't have to wade through the wall of text. I imagine a distopia where you are required to completely read each and every comment.
posted by fuq at 1:01 PM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
I think, Ivan Fyodorvich, that surely being respectful most of the time - whether subject of post is present or not, in another dimension or not, etc etc is surely not too much to ask as a starting point?
This is not to frown on criticism whatsoever, but speaking just personally for myself, I would have gotten far, far more from your initial comment in that thread sans the huffy hyperbole, and I probably would have read your many subsequent comments on the topic, too - rather than another two or so before I tuned out.
I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I don't actually think you're a big offender in this category, which is why I suppose it leapt out at me so much when you just went off your tits for no apparent reason and starting snarkily deriding Maias and other mefites for no real reason so quickly.
I don't feel like anyone is asking the site to become BoingBoing and Friendship is Magic only, far from it. But I don't think a recognition that there are ways to disagree that encourage dialogue and mutual understanding, and ways that deliberately work against that - and that the average member of the site probably finds the former more entertaining, interesting, educational and worthwhile than the latter - is so very controversial.
I understand that, tonally, a lot of this is probably imported from internet discourse at large, and further that the most embittered of these arguments are typically happening in the weird nexus of fan stuff, or viral stuff, or internet or political culture - places that are very invested for people because they're used as leverage for self or community identification, so I think there's lots of issues around norms, and mores and in and outgroups there.
But I think some forethought before instincually pulling the internet-comment trigger could overcome the emotional or otherwise challenges in 99.9% of cases on Mefi.
I dunno, I don't the world in general is really suffering from surfeit of respect, and I don't think promoting a bit more of playing the ball and not the person will really result in some kind of GroupThink intellectual gulag.
posted by smoke at 1:31 PM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
This is not to frown on criticism whatsoever, but speaking just personally for myself, I would have gotten far, far more from your initial comment in that thread sans the huffy hyperbole, and I probably would have read your many subsequent comments on the topic, too - rather than another two or so before I tuned out.
I don't mean to pick on you in particular, I don't actually think you're a big offender in this category, which is why I suppose it leapt out at me so much when you just went off your tits for no apparent reason and starting snarkily deriding Maias and other mefites for no real reason so quickly.
I don't feel like anyone is asking the site to become BoingBoing and Friendship is Magic only, far from it. But I don't think a recognition that there are ways to disagree that encourage dialogue and mutual understanding, and ways that deliberately work against that - and that the average member of the site probably finds the former more entertaining, interesting, educational and worthwhile than the latter - is so very controversial.
I understand that, tonally, a lot of this is probably imported from internet discourse at large, and further that the most embittered of these arguments are typically happening in the weird nexus of fan stuff, or viral stuff, or internet or political culture - places that are very invested for people because they're used as leverage for self or community identification, so I think there's lots of issues around norms, and mores and in and outgroups there.
But I think some forethought before instincually pulling the internet-comment trigger could overcome the emotional or otherwise challenges in 99.9% of cases on Mefi.
I dunno, I don't the world in general is really suffering from surfeit of respect, and I don't think promoting a bit more of playing the ball and not the person will really result in some kind of GroupThink intellectual gulag.
posted by smoke at 1:31 PM on March 1, 2012 [3 favorites]
I read Ivan's long post at the end of the Obesity and Childhood Trauma FPP and it was quite helpful to me. In his defense, I wrote him through MeFi Mail alerting him to the fact that I had responded to one of his previous posts, and that I was interested in reading what he had to say.
I suppose he could have sent me an email with his response or sent it back to me through MeFi Mail (if it allows messages that long), but it was germane to the thread as it had developed and people who weren't interested could simply skip it.
I appreciated what he shared and took something substantial away from it (including, and especially because of, the personal stuff).
posted by samizdat at 2:02 PM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
I suppose he could have sent me an email with his response or sent it back to me through MeFi Mail (if it allows messages that long), but it was germane to the thread as it had developed and people who weren't interested could simply skip it.
I appreciated what he shared and took something substantial away from it (including, and especially because of, the personal stuff).
posted by samizdat at 2:02 PM on March 1, 2012 [1 favorite]
I just don't get this "hogging the microphone" attitude.
Depends if you think it's worth reading the whole thread or you prefer to just drop your stuff in. Usually the thread runs better when people care enough to read it before commenting.
posted by Wolof at 6:10 AM on March 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Depends if you think it's worth reading the whole thread or you prefer to just drop your stuff in. Usually the thread runs better when people care enough to read it before commenting.
posted by Wolof at 6:10 AM on March 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Actually, you know what? Forget I said anything. I'm probably just dragging my own shit here, again. When all you have is a shit hammer, the whole world looks like shit. I'm going to step away for awhile. Sorry.
Hey IRFH!
Don't go, stay, you are great. I haven't read the Jesse Thorn thread because I wanted to not get mad at people hating on one of my favorite people. I doubt any negative thing you or any clever person would say could set off my defensiveness-bomb.
What I want to stamp out is knee-jerk hate of things, especially as in "DURR THIS TITLE IS IRONIC I HATE THIS DURRR" and not, never, disagreement.
Anyway, come back to the 5 and Dimes sometime bobby v! I don't know if you'll read this but I'd rather be hit by your shit hammer than tickled with a thousand love feathers of lesser users.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:17 AM on March 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
Hey IRFH!
Don't go, stay, you are great. I haven't read the Jesse Thorn thread because I wanted to not get mad at people hating on one of my favorite people. I doubt any negative thing you or any clever person would say could set off my defensiveness-bomb.
What I want to stamp out is knee-jerk hate of things, especially as in "DURR THIS TITLE IS IRONIC I HATE THIS DURRR" and not, never, disagreement.
Anyway, come back to the 5 and Dimes sometime bobby v! I don't know if you'll read this but I'd rather be hit by your shit hammer than tickled with a thousand love feathers of lesser users.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:17 AM on March 2, 2012 [1 favorite]
I actually gravitate towards the longer comments, because I like thoughtful comments, and a long one suggests that this person is engaged with the topic enough to give a good deal of thought and time and energy to responding to it. I've never read a long comment, whether I agreed with it or not, that I didn't consider a valuable contribution to a thread.
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2012
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2012
Ugh. Just catching up on MeFi/MeTa, and went back and read that whole thread and this one.
I can't believe we lost IRFH over this. Come back, IRFH -- MetaFilter needs the rain! (And the Florence Henderson!)
posted by trip and a half at 8:47 AM on March 4, 2012
I can't believe we lost IRFH over this. Come back, IRFH -- MetaFilter needs the rain! (And the Florence Henderson!)
posted by trip and a half at 8:47 AM on March 4, 2012
Flo disables his account regularly, and then comes back. I hope he'll be back soon, but I think it's probably not accurate to talk about "losing" him over this.
posted by OmieWise at 1:14 PM on March 4, 2012
posted by OmieWise at 1:14 PM on March 4, 2012
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:44 PM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]