----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: Social networks (RE: List, list, who's got the list?)
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Kevin Street > > [snip] > > > Er, please pardon the digression, but I don't think that the number of > > replies is a terribly valid way to judge the strength of an > > argument. > > And I'd like to add that I don't imagine that I'm measuring the strength of > arguments. I'm trying to measure the influence of each person. It's like > judging the size of a stone thrown into a pond by measuring the ripples it > produces. > The problem I see with this is that what is actually measured is the tendency of people to rebut or add to the ideas presented in a post. Few people post statements like "that was a great post, thanks" in response to a post that has influenced their thinking. The best personal example of this is how I can stop a science thread cold. There have been a number of occasions where people debate an idea that relates to physics. After a few days, I decide I need to take the time to write a good first principals post on the subject. It becomes the last post in the thread. I think the reason for this is that I did influence the thinking of the people, not that I had no influence. My guess is that I have demonstrated enough understanding of physics so that, when I post on physics, it carries a good deal of weight. Thus, I would guess that such a post actually changes peoples minds more than a post where I get 10 people arguing against what I write. Dan M.
