My goal was to show a “rational toothpaste” post could be worthwhile. I’m also slightly disappointed that the discussion was primarily on the object-level, although the post itself was too heavily about toothpaste per se. Not that object-level comments should have been avoided, but more higher-level comments would have been nice.
But we don’t need more than one or two such examples! Yvain’s post about question-dissolving was the only such post I ever need to read.
One or two examples are sufficient to make you aware of a technique, but further examples, case studies, or applications help it sink in further. Posts (particularly in discussion) can illustrate methods rather than present or analyse them.
Of course, practice is better than reading examples. Research done during practice or deliberate application might as well be publicly shared though. I would find posts framed as field reports (i.e. here’s my problem, how I approached it, the research/experiments I did, tentative conclusions/decisions, request for advice) much more palatable than advice columns (i.e. 10 low hanging fruit about car purchases) or generic recommendation requests.
I’m also slightly disappointed that the discussion was primarily on the object-level
Gah! Object level is awesome! More object level!
You made your point, we get it and more meta crap is far less useful than some object level discussion. In fact, if you just ended up prompting meta discussion you would not have supported your point.
My ‘ickiness’ is probably a direct function of recently meeting someone who’d spent some time reading LW and found the level of PUA acceptance offputting enough that she hasn’t come back.
My goal was to show a “rational toothpaste” post could be worthwhile. I’m also slightly disappointed that the discussion was primarily on the object-level, although the post itself was too heavily about toothpaste per se. Not that object-level comments should have been avoided, but more higher-level comments would have been nice.
One or two examples are sufficient to make you aware of a technique, but further examples, case studies, or applications help it sink in further. Posts (particularly in discussion) can illustrate methods rather than present or analyse them.
Of course, practice is better than reading examples. Research done during practice or deliberate application might as well be publicly shared though. I would find posts framed as field reports (i.e. here’s my problem, how I approached it, the research/experiments I did, tentative conclusions/decisions, request for advice) much more palatable than advice columns (i.e. 10 low hanging fruit about car purchases) or generic recommendation requests.
Thoughts on a [Field Report] tag in discussion?
Gah! Object level is awesome! More object level!
You made your point, we get it and more meta crap is far less useful than some object level discussion. In fact, if you just ended up prompting meta discussion you would not have supported your point.
I would love to see more field reports in discussion.
‘field report’ gives me an icky PUA vibe. Right idea, but possibly bad choice of terminology.
I associated it with PUA as well, though I didn’t get an icky vibe from the association.
My ‘ickiness’ is probably a direct function of recently meeting someone who’d spent some time reading LW and found the level of PUA acceptance offputting enough that she hasn’t come back.
Appropriate and useful.