As a newbie, my gut reaction is to “second this emotion”… but there is another perspective I’ve long considered…
First, a disclaimer… while I voraciously read anything Stephen Jay Gould writes, I am not, nor claim to be any sort of expert in evolutionary biology. (This statement will quickly become intuitively obvious to the reader.)
Before joining recently, I have lurked amongst the Teeming Millions for a couple of years. During that time, I’ve watched with interest (and no small amount of humor) the ongoing discussions regarding what I’ll call “post-count envy” (for after all, size matters… ~grin~). This has been usually evidenced via either defensive or flaming behaviors by the low-posters. I’ve also seen some behaviors by some of the high-posters that would tend to reinforce some of this paranoid thinking (who was it that said “if you don’t see conspiracy all around you, you’re not paying close enough attention”?)
In the beginning of my lurking, I didn’t understand the rationale behind displaying the post counts. It seemed irrelevant. Yet over time I’ve come to a different conclusion… I now believe that post counts serve as a reasonable predictor of the weight to be put on the content of the post itself.
Why?.. as a result of the inherent viability demonstrated through the survival of the fittest. Specifically, via two slightly different metaphors…
1. post counts as an indicator of population fitness
2. post counts as an indicator of individual fitness
Post counts as an indicator of population fitness.
Think of the SDMB as an environment where each poster represents a species (insects perhaps?.. after all, we are the Teeming Millions), and where the post count shows the population of that species. The first thing to note is that most species are either extinct, or have never gained a foothold. Some species are thriving (especially the handy), and many others are more than moderately successful. And of course, there are always new populations attempting to gain a foothold, such as… ahem… myself. All in all, there have been approximately 18,000+ species here in this fertile environment, of which (assuming kabbes is correct with the calculations and conclusions), about 6,000 still exist (with some of those populations stagnant).
Why do some species thrive and others die out? …or cling to survival by a thread? [sub](pun intended)[/sub] Clearly, to thrive, a species has to have brains, and to survive over long periods of time they need tenacity. In addition, the more adaptable the species, the better it can thrive in the various climates (GQ, IMHO, MPSIMS, The Pit, etc). This requires a robustness that not all species are blessed with.
Some new species are predatory, and they quickly get exterminated sub[/sub]. Others die out just because the environment doesn’t suit them (or vice versa).
Post counts as an indicator of individual fitness.
In this sense, post counts are like big antlers or iridescent peacock tails (or expensive and flashy jewelry in the case of the human animal)… it is an external display of worthiness. (“don’t mess with me… see these things?.. I am powerful… you could hurt yourself if you try to take me on.”) In these individuals there resides wisdom, knowledge, and battle-hardiness. They have earned a certain amount of respect. The herd doesn’t follow the young buck challenging the alpha male… the herd follows their leader, who they’ve grown to trust over time.
And just like in the population metaphor, adaptability is crucial to long term survival.
Either way, my conclusion is that the post count is an important indicator to how much weight I put on their opinions (not the only indicator of course, but an important one).
Footnote: Now that I’ve re-read what I’ve written, I came very close to just deleting it because it seems too much like a mis-application of good science in an attempt to justify an opinion… but hey, screw that… it took me too long to write it to just throw it away.
