How representative is the SDMB? And how representative does it want to be?

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
21

No it’s not representative. It’s a basically American institution. As such it doesn’t respond well to reasonable criticism of America/American actions (think of the Aldebran banning that left me with a really nasty taste in the mouth).

It is also overwhelmingly Liberal/leftwing (I think I can safely say that I am the only right wing Brit on here (or at least the only one that posts in threads where that is relevant). So in short it is self selecting - especially now its pay-to-play. Why would someone who didn’t fit in with the consensus go to the effort (and rather minor expense) to post here? They wouldn’t so the consensus gets strengthened.

[FWIW I’m out of here at the end of the month, when the sub runs out - and it’s not the money that’s the issue]

22

Aldebaran was being banned for being a jerk. He gave false ‘quotes’ about Jewish people. ‘Quotes’ he happened to have on his hard drive, but weren’t true. He was a liar.
I was amazed at how long he was able to tell his lies. The mods really gave him every opportunity to spit on the Western world, untill it was clear to everyone that hatred for America alone is okay [see posts by RedFury, who is still here. * - màn, I’m surprised RF can still type with all that spittle in his keyboard* :smiley: -, but hatred AND being a lying jerk, is a no-no.

I like it that the boards are basically an American institution. If I had wanted a board that agreed with me in every sense, I’d stay on a Dutch board. I learn a lot here. Including stuff about other countries.

Sorry to see you go, owl.

23

Not a whoosh at all. Read the OP carefully – it’s not clear whether he’s asking “representative of the US” or “representative of the world.” These are two different questions, and I wanted to know which he was asking.

For that matter, what does “representative” mean?

BTW, as a white, upper-middle-class, liberal/progressive, non-Christain, US citizen, I feel completely at home here.

24

I would say that the boards are more literate, more educated and more intelligent than the general population.

For some reason though, the dope also seems overwhelmingly poor. I suspect a lot of that has to do with the fact that mainly poor people are posting in finacially related threads.

25

I guess I’ve become a bit postmodernist in my dotage, believing that texts are a joint production of producer and receiver, while of course retaining the overarching belief that anything I write is especially worth reading. Come to think of it, that’s what the postmodernists believe too.

I think the key question is my second: “How representative does the SDMB want to be?” (Okay - ‘for that matter, “what’s SDMB?”’ I can hear someone ask; and another asking ‘what’s straight?’ and a third (or the first bloke coming back for another bite at the cherry) asking ‘what’s a message?’; and then someone who thinks he gets it, but doesn’t quite in fact, coming in and asking 'what’s the difference between a board and a forum?"; and finally a moderator descending and asking ‘What did you mean to reference by “it” in the first part of the previous clause?’)

What I mean can really best be addressed by reflecting on the sad news that Owl will be upping sticks and leaving his SDMB Wolery.

Owl asks: ‘Why would someone who didn’t fit in with the consensus go to the effort to post here?’ Now, Owl appears from his online persona to be much thicker-skinned than many other posters, than indeed the majority of posters. If he finds it all getting too much, then what hope for the rest of us?

26

Well, as you’ve already seen, the population of pedantic and easily offended people has more than adequate representation on the SDMB.

And I’m only half joking. Although the boards look like they’re a general purpose random sampling, because you get posts about all types of topics as well as no topic at all, it’s still very much a niche audience. The niche is the same as the readership of the Straight Dope column, which is what attracted most people to the boards, either directly or tangentially.

The column’s about providing answers to mundane and not-so-mundane topics, so you get posters interested in a variety of subject matter than really drilling down into one topic (except maybe “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”). It’s about research and scientific or at least semi-scientific answers, more than opinion or faith, so you get a higher representation of skeptics, people with a scientific background, and/or academics. It’s written with a sardonic and at times condescending tone, so you get a high proportion of smart-asses. And it attempts to challenge commonly-held assumptions and preconceptions, so you find a high proportion of atheists and see that those who are unwilling to have their beliefs challenged at all (you know, “fundies”) eventually get frustrated and leave.

The rest, I believe, is distribution. As you say, the column started in Chicago, hence the high proportion of old-timers who’ve been reading from the first column, or heard of it because it’s got a higher visibility there. It’s carried mostly in “alternative” papers (at least that’s where I first saw it, in “Creative Loafing” in Atlanta), which tend to be distributed in areas that have the exact same demographic you see a lot of on the boards – Americans who “lean left” politically, homosexuals, urbanites, college students, self-proclaimed “bohemians.” I’m not sure how the column gets distributed outside the US?

Typically, the type of blokes who have to ask “what’s straight?” aren’t the type who like to take bites at cherries.

27

I may be the only part-English, part-Indian Australian Doper on here.
[The Fast Show] Which is nice. [/The Fast Show].
You may not want to count me Roger as I’m a newbie guest, but I’m planning to stick around if my finances allow me to (I’m a student), so hopefully I can soon be a full member.
I’m finding it all very interesting. (And I mean that in a good way, most of the time).

28

Heck - I made that n+1 when I joined. One of the reasons I like it here is because it makes me feel non-pedantic and relatively normal OCD-wise.

Not sure about this (or, in time-honoured SDMB fashion, cite?). Certainly my scientific sample of one didn’t arrive here that way.

The four most popular forums are MPSIMS, IMHO, The Pit, and Cafe Society. Nuff said.

Plus, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have brought praise”. We shouldn’t underestimate those without paper qualifications, those who have been educated in the university of life. Plus, a lot of research stinks anyway.

Throughout modern history, extending I believe to this day, those at the forefront of challenging commonly-held assumptions and preconceptions were people of faith - whether they were recognised in their own lifetimes or not.

If this is true, or partially true, then those alternative folk - renowned for their belief in pluralism and tolerance, and for their desire to shun convention and orthodoxy and take the path less trodden - will be desirous that people of different views and ethoses populate the SDMB.

29

No cite, just an observation. If the folks at the Chicago Reader have done any demographics or surveys to determine whether the number of people who discovered the boards via the column is greater than the number who stumbled on the boards some other way. From what I’ve read, I’d be highly skeptical that that’s not the case. For all I know, it’s changed as the population of the boards has increased.

Don’t think so. The forum with the most threads is General Questions, which AFAIK was intended as the “meat” of the boards; everything else is an adjunct. Depends on whether you say “popular” is the number of replies to posts, or the number of posts at all.

Sounds like you’re hearing a value judgement where I wasn’t intending one. My point was that although the boards can appear to be a general, random sampling of people, it’s still attracting a particular type of audience. When I’m talking in WAG demographic mode, I’m not making value judgements – I’ve got at least a dozen stereotypes that could be applied to me, but I like to think I still come up with an original thought on occasion.

Again, no value judgement was implied. I’m the last person who’d disparage anyone for being a person of faith. The tone of the columns, though, demands proof to support a claim and has little tolerance for those who use faith alone or make statements that have no support other than “it’s true because I believe it to be true.” Which is part of the reason you tend to see so many heated religious arguments on the boards. It’s because, I believe, you have people trying to prove or disprove the inherently unprovable.

Um, yeah. Nice idea. In practice, it still needs work. The philosophy of the boards, at least as I interpret it, isn’t one of tolerance. (And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.) It’s “demand the truth, be prepared to back up what you say, challenge preconceived notions, take little of anything seriously, and be as entertaining as you can while you do it.” Bringing a different perspective on things is certainly welcome, but what you say is more important than your background.

(And as always, I’m not trying to make the board rules or nothin’. I’m just giving my opinon of how it works.)

30

Some adjunct!

Here are the figures for the various fora (I’ve omitted ATMB). Dates given refer to first post in each forum (as far as I can identify them - obviously the transition from AOL has thrown up a few anomalies). The other numbers are threads (first) and posts (second):

Comments on Cecil’s Columns (18 March 1999) 3,200; 40,524
Comments on Staff Reports (30 April 1999) 1,474; 18,854
General Questions (13 May 1999) 102,423; 1,126,947
Great Debates (8 June 1999) 19,528; 779,283
Café Society (30 August 2001) 37,152; 762,423
IMHO (24 May 2000) 34,849; 810,410
MPSIMS (28 June 1999) 66,919; 1,371,096
The BBQ Pit (11 March 1999) 23,020; 903,504

So, while GQ (established in May 1999) is first in terms of number of separate threads, MPSIMS (established a month later) is first in terms of number of posts. I would guess it had a monstrous lead in terms of number of views. If you add the three social threads together (CS, IMHO and MPSIMS - I’m discounting The Pit , though I know quite a few people enjoy a good vent), you get a total of 138,920 threads, and nearly 3 million posts (2,943,929), compared to 102,423 threads and 1,126,947 threads for GQ.

You said you’d be very sceptical if the number of people who discovered the boards via the column isn’t greater than the number who stumbled on the boards some other way. That might, I suppose, be true. But one thing that the low numbers for threads and posts in Comments on Cecil’s Column and Comments on Staff Reports shows is that even if they get here through Cecil’s print or online column, folks quickly flit off to other pastures.

The number of “Views” gives perhaps the best indication of the popularity of a thread, given that not every member is a regular poster, but many are regular readers. If you believe, as I do, that they’re every bit as valuable as those of us who like to have a voice, then “Views” must be right up there.

31

I realize I’m coming across as either profoundly disingenuous or a complete freakin’ idiot here, but I still don’t think I know the answer to the question “representative of what?”

Representative of the U.S. or world population as a whole? Probably not – because of our regular access to computers and our relatively high level of literacy, we’re skewing way to the elite end of either population right there. Blah blah – this seems to be the question people are addressing, which is fine.

There’s a deeper question, though – what do you mean by “representative”?One “represents” (something) to (someone). What is being communicated by our membership, and to whom? Yeah, okay, I’m reading way too much into this. I guess I’m wondering – fine, we don’t reflect the mean of (whatever) population in terms of education, IQ, income, politics, race, etc. etc. etc. – so what? What is being distorted – and who is being somehow misled – by our skewing to whatever degree on whatever axis we’re skewing on?

32

Looking back at the OP, roger thornhill mentions the US and several other english speaking countries, so I feel it is safe to rule out the question " How representative of the United States is the SDMB?" Thus the question is most likely in regards to the english speaking world and mewmbers of other countries that can read english, but I am not roger thornhill, so I can not tell you for sure. :stuck_out_tongue:

33

Before I address your main points (or try to), I need to point out that I didn’t talk about any of this!

So on to the key part of my OP, the bit I’d really like people to attend to and discuss, the qualitative stuff:

I’ve noticed that it’s pretty difficult to be heard here - broadly speaking - unless you belong to an identifiably accepted group. Thus, Christians who do not subscribe to certain views - a certain ethos, one might say - are given rather a hard time. It sharpens one’s wits for a time - having to defend one’s position - but then inevitably it becomes rather irksome. It also becomes more and more disillusioning as one realises that it’s as if a 6-year old drama is being enacted on stage by players who know their parts back to front.

Worse than the derision or the invisibilisation is the condescension: the challenging of one’s credentials, the misreadings, the exhortations to read this and that - which one probably read when the exhorter was still in nappies.

I salute the folk on GD and in the Pit who have resisted the insidious temptation to fit in in this way, who don’t care for popularity, who don’t care to be exercise power, especially covert power, to build their power bases, to garner disciples.

So how can the SDMB be more representative? In the same kind of way that the Judiciary can be more representative. Or the House of Commons. Or an advisory board of the type that we have a plethora of here in Hong Kong.

By actively seeking ways of getting new blood (perhaps a better metaphor would be new blood types) in; by ensuring that the fairest people become officers of the board; and by accepting, embracing, and actually encouraging dissenting voices.

34

The problem with recruiting new people is that the SDMB is now a pay site. There are plenty of free message boards out there, so how many people do you think will be willing to pay $15 a month to join this one? And getting people who would currently feel unwelcome on the SDMB to join (and pay money to do so) will be about as easy as getting Osama bin Laden to sing “God Bless America.”

35

I don’t think it is so much that, as it is that when people argue, they often bring opinions with them. When it is not clear what your opinions are on a matter, it can be confusing.

36

It’s $15 a year. :smiley:

37

Excellent, excellent observation! Keenly worded, too. I hope that some day when I grow up, I’ll be able to say as much with so few words as the estimable mr. thornhill.

38

Starvers, you dreadful old flatterer you!

Mind you, you write with eyes that know the darkness in my soul…

39

Indeed! It was with a fearful heart that I ventured my post…but I gots ta call 'em as I sees 'em.

You may fire at will.

40

I** love it. It’s all those others who would not listen, and are not listening still. Those who, for example, mockingly suggest that we get a room. Anyway, your garret suits me just fine - the port, the impasto (just learned that word and am keen to practise it), the Gitane-stained preliminary sketches…