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

[roger_thornhill]

I love it…

[Starving_Artist]

@roger thornhill

I** love it. It’s all those others who would not listen, and are not listening still.

Perhaps they never will.

@roger thornhill

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…

Those who mockingly suggest we get a room are clearly oblivious to our proclivities in regard to the opposite sex. I suspect they also suffer from a rather justifiable sense of exclusion when listening to us discuss such things as fine art…either that, or they just want to end my hijacking of the thread and get it back on track.

And thank you for your comments on my humble atelier. It is ever so much more enjoyable when described in such romantic terms.

(You remember the appropriate definition, I trust.)

[LSLGuy]

I would suggest we don’t have one board. “The SDMB” is a misnomer, and one which misleads more than it enlightens.

As an example, I have nearly 1000 posts to my name, read the Board nearly daily, but I’ve never opened a single thread in CS, and only 1 or 2 each in the Pit and GD. I’ve only displayed the thread list in those forums a handful of times, and seeing nothing of interest I’ve moved on to other things.

I suggest folks like me are more common than omnilexes (?!) who devour every forum. Certainly there are folks who live in GD & CS and abhor the dry style of GQ.

Within my chosen subset of SDMB (GQ, some IMHO and a smidgen of MSPSIMS for mindless time-wasting) I do see a lot of US-centrism, but most of it is simply lack of imagination on the part of the poster, often a Guest, rather than chauvinism.

I occasionally see two folks get locked into a “You misinterpretted my words, you twit. No YOU misinterpretted MY words, you bigger twit …” exchange, but these die out pretty quickly.

I just don’t see the intellectual combat and group insider-or-outsider dynamics our OP speaks of.

Finally, the OP says

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.

While those are fine sentiments, the SDMB is fundamentally a social club. I come here not to change the world, or to legislate. I come here for comardarie and a chance to satisfy my curiosity.

If the Boards drift into being too contentious, or too self-censoring in the misguided pursuit of “sensitivity”, then they’ll cease to satisfy me and I’ll leave. You (any you) will have different desires and that’s fine. Each of us has our own metric of satisfaction, and the idea that some all-knowing leadership can or should determine some a priori metric for each of us to want and then drive the boards in that way is not only impossible, but a really bad idea.

As an essentially anarchic social organization, it’ll go wherever it collectively goes. Rather like an oijia pointer, we all move it collectively, even though none of us move it directly. You’re certainly free to exhort the masses to go the way you’d prefer, but don’t be surprised if the vast majority prefer some other direction; not necessarily diametrically opposed, just off kilter a few degrees. And the more their preferences run to the diametric, the louder thay’ll protest your pushing and pulling.

It is ever thus in human society.

[twickster]

@LSLGuy

I would suggest we don’t have one board. “The SDMB” is a misnomer, and one which misleads more than it enlightens.

<snip>

As an essentially anarchic social organization, it’ll go wherever it collectively goes. Rather like an oijia pointer, we all move it collectively, even though none of us move it directly.

Great point and wonderful metaphor, LSLGuy!

My “what’s the problem” reaction to the OP is clearly totally blindered – because I don’t think I’ve ever been in Great Debates, and I only tiptoe through the Pit about once a week (often less). I hang out here, in Cafe Society, and in IMHO, with a daily reading of (and occasional posting in) GQ. In the social fora – and also in the fact-based GQ – who you are, where you live, or the color of your skin are all pretty damn irrelevant – it’s all about your ability to flip a quip or come up with a bit of information.

[roger_thornhill]

LSLGuy, thanks foir wasting a bit of time here to make a most interesting contirbution, withe which I can found almost nothing to fault. Like Twickster, you spend time in GQ, whither I hardly ever venture. Like many others, I find that the Pit typically offers better debate and discussion than GD. Once again, I have to say that my comments are based as much on feelings as on emipirical evidence. But some of that evidence, including people who are different posting very little and reading a lot, and people leaving, is quite compelling. We have not much in difference. Indeed, as a universalist, I always believe that what we have in common (especially those brought up in the J-C tradition) is far greater than what we do not.

[Shirley_Ujest]

The way I look at is there are only a few types here:

Trekkies
Hobbitts’
GD’ers
Pitizens
People of Unusual Mundaness.
Cat People
Dog People

Color isn’t an issue here.