[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by ppu6502
	So, who decides which things it would work for?

I don't know. I suppose people can try making it work, and it will fail where it doesn't, just like some threads get only a few responses then disappear into oblivion. Hypothetically if it was up, users could post conclusive summaries to any thread that died, and anyone could contest it, but at least they would be contesting up to date hypotheses and not re-worded versions of old ones they never read or couldn't find.

and lol, make up your mind when you post ppu.

[KonTiki]

1. When I read the comments following a wsj.com or nytimes.com article, I usually only read those with lots of "likes." I just don't have time to read everything. The nytimes.com especially allows well liked comments to bubble up to the top. (So, I'm saying I like CrudeHypothesis's idea for the forum, in some form.)

2. As for driving threads to reach conclusions, this does require some authority acting as an arbiter. There are lots of ways that could be achieved, from moderators actively pruning threads, to whoever started the thread acting like a talk show host and shepherding the discussion.

[JTG]

I think a wiki would push information exchange into a more static place, whereas now discussions and ideas are always in motion.

I don't disagree that a giant compendium of INTJf knowledge could be impressive and useful, but i think the fun of the forum is to engage and participate in the exchange of ideas, compared to reading an article like on wikipedia or any of my other usual resources

[thecase]

Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis

Trouble is, everyone is kind of in it for themselves, and it's no ones fault. There is a mass of great minds here, and each is only interested in particular threads, and they have to be with the large portion of redundant threads and not thought through comments on them. There should be a way to extract the relevant conclusions of every thread and put them somewhere easily accessible, like our own INTJ Forum wiki or something. You know, use the scientific method. If we could all work together we could achieve amazing things, but that's as unlikely to happen as both sides of my brain working together so I can fucking stop procrastinating writing long essays and go back to study

That would be neat .

I am always slightly baffled that when I click "Unread Posts" I get a long listing of thoughtless game threads. I know most message-boards are like this, but knowing my own INTJ nature, I thought I'd see much less interest in those types of threads here. They just don't do it for me.

[Jezebel]

	Originally Posted by thecase
	when I click "Unread Posts" I get a long listing of thoughtless game threads

You don't have to see them if you don't want to. Go to your UserCP, select "Edit Options" from the side menu, and look for the section at the very bottom of the page titled "Forums to Exclude From View"

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by KonTiki
	1. When I read the comments following a wsj.com or nytimes.com article, I usually only read those with lots of "likes." I just don't have time to read everything. The nytimes.com especially allows well liked comments to bubble up to the top. (So, I'm saying I like CrudeHypothesis's idea for the forum, in some form.)

Voting on comments is not something I recommend. I think any real INTP will tell you that statements are either valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak. Popularity shouldn't come into the equation. It's because it does that we have politicians though

	Originally Posted by KonTiki
	2. As for driving threads to reach conclusions, this does require some authority acting as an arbiter. There are lots of ways that could be achieved, from moderators actively pruning threads, to whoever started the thread acting like a talk show host and shepherding the discussion.

I think some threads hold intent to reach conclusions, and others do not. If I start a thread to get a conclusion on something, like this one, then I want to be able to put the conclusion somewhere for others to see. I'm the one trying to reach a conclusion in my thread, I'm driving it with the intent of reaching one.

	Originally Posted by JTG
	I think a wiki would push information exchange into a more static place, whereas now discussions and ideas are always in motion. I don't disagree that a giant compendium of INTJf knowledge could be impressive and useful, but i think the fun of the forum is to engage and participate in the exchange of ideas, compared to reading an article like on wikipedia or any of my other usual resources

I'm not suggesting it for everything, only the topics than have been done to death, and no one wants to discuss anymore. The topics that are all archived and anyone trying to start a thread on without a substantially new angle will usually be redirected to an old thread by a member who's been around. Rather then directing them to the thread, direct them to a place where a summary of the thread is, that has a nice little reviewed conclusion at the end, rather than risking the new reader making up their own mind half way through based on what's said the most, which isn't a critical analysis.

	Originally Posted by thecase
	That would be neat . I am always slightly baffled that when I click "Unread Posts" I get a long listing of thoughtless game threads. I know most message-boards are like this, but knowing my own INTJ nature, I thought I'd see much less interest in those types of threads here. They just don't do it for me.

	Originally Posted by Jezebel
	You don't have to see them if you don't want to. Go to your UserCP, select "Edit Options" from the side menu, and look for the section at the very bottom of the page titled "Forums to Exclude From View"

Thanks Jezebel, those are options I have to check out.

[mieu]

I think that the concept of a 'conclusion' should be looked at...a discussion is an organic thing. If a thread on abortion gets enough people that sufficiently prove the pro-choice end of it such that the current pro-life outfit is not able to form a sufficient rebuttal, does that preclude a future pro-lifer with a valid and sound argument from joining into the conversation to finally refute the premise upon which the previous 'conclusion' is based, or does that just mean it becomes a new thread, and then conclusions evolve as per 'child' threads that spin off of them?

I think that the reason some topics are so popular is that no conclusion is reached and thus--like you say--people keep just posting their opinion cold-turkey without reading the entire thread, etc.

[bladeszcat]

Originally Posted by mieu

I think that the concept of a 'conclusion' should be looked at...a discussion is an organic thing. If a thread on abortion gets enough people that sufficiently prove the pro-choice end of it such that the current pro-life outfit is not able to form a sufficient rebuttal, does that preclude a future pro-lifer with a valid and sound argument from joining into the conversation to finally refute the premise upon which the previous 'conclusion' is based, or does that just mean it becomes a new thread, and then conclusions evolve as per 'child' threads that spin off of them?

The former has the propensity to be cool. Putting an established conclusion on a pedestal like a gunslinger from the Old West. Until he's knocked down by the hot-headed young blood trying to make a name for himself. That way may lie evolution.

	Originally Posted by mieu
	I think that the reason some topics are so popular is that no conclusion is reached and thus--like you say--people keep just posting their opinion cold-turkey without reading the entire thread, etc.

INTJs, in particular, are also more prone than the next MBTI type to be in love with their own voices, since they've systematically removed most others.

Aside from such headstrong behaviour, you're also combating the general attention deficit disorder the internet is. Actual organization of the information and funneling all INTJs through them might be necessary, which may be unlikely owing to the ADD itself, aside from whispering Police State.

Anybody fumbling around his limited grasp of his immediate environment will be bound to spew a cliche or ten.

How does one net such myriad subjective perspectives without giving in to the collective hubris of the int "J" need for closure?

In the interest of perspective aggregation, I've linked something that may help a little. It substantiates my point a little more, though. I happened to be the OP, so I could see the similar patterns between what's being said and this topic. And I'm still not sure if I'm not spamming the thread.

I absolutely agree with the intent behind this thread, though. It will be interesting to see where this discussion leads.

http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=60431&highlight=

[Alberto]

To some degree you speak of data mining - however I cannot see any viable way to extract conclusions from any thread. Most threads host a shower of different perspectives, deeming one or another as the "conclusion" would be unfair (aside from the fact in many there is no such thing as a conclusion lol).

This could however be implemented by subjective policies - for instance once I am accustomed to the forum, there are a couple of names whose posts I skip with automatic pilot, and then one knows that one needs, after a while, to quit the thread: once you think you have exposed with sufficient clarity your point of view and you have answered most objections, it should be the subject him/herself to quit replying. Most of the times going on restating over and over again the same elements is pointless due to two cases:

(1) One has exhausted his/her capacities to express clearly a thought: it is pointless to endeavour to be clearer where you believe you (unfortunately) cannot be any clearer. You accept the limit.

(2) One should not allow him/herself to be dragged into pointless arguments for dozens of posts - if there are persons who keep objecting in the same manner, this is no crusade: you have made your point, you ahve already addressed most objections, it is now open to public inspection for whoever may want to get ideas about it.

Just my penny.

---------- Post added 06-16-2012 at 11:10 PM ----------

ps more than conclusions, posts could be arranged by case
Topic X
for case 1: here the posts (arguments); for case 2: here the posts (arguments); oh and we have also a case 3 and maybe 4...?

However this would also need manual intervention (besides at times even on multiple threads who treat same/similar issues) - highly unfeasable for it places an unnecessary burden on the shoulders of moderators or collaborators who are already doing enough for free.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Originally Posted by mieu

I think that the concept of a 'conclusion' should be looked at...a discussion is an organic thing. If a thread on abortion gets enough people that sufficiently prove the pro-choice end of it such that the current pro-life outfit is not able to form a sufficient rebuttal, does that preclude a future pro-lifer with a valid and sound argument from joining into the conversation to finally refute the premise upon which the previous 'conclusion' is based, or does that just mean it becomes a new thread, and then conclusions evolve as per 'child' threads that spin off of them? I think that the reason some topics are so popular is that no conclusion is reached and thus--like you say--people keep just posting their opinion cold-turkey without reading the entire thread, etc.

Yes, my idea wouldn't be applicable to the threads that aren't designed to reach conclusions. Hard science is designed to reach conclusions. A thread on 'pro-life or pro choice' would be about as conclusive as a thread on 'chocolate or strawberry'.

[Alberto]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis
	Yes, my idea wouldn't be applicable to the threads that aren't designed to reach conclusions. Hard science is designed to reach conclusions. A thread on 'pro-life or pro choice' would be about as conclusive as a thread on 'chocolate or strawberry'.

Well, you may find no instance of such a thing here. I mean these are mostly philosophical forums, there is one section about science and math too but it can be hardly considered as a place where scientists gather to reach conclusions with technological or implementable consequences - even mere scientifical advanced/hard theory would still need to be tested, and testing is something you cannot do on a forum.

This aside from the fact there is a vast population of persons who deem themselves "scientists" because they have taken a couple of Math exams, or who deem themselves rational because they have seen a couple of Tv shows.

Maybe you want to specify better what you meant by "conclusions". I doubt you were thinking indeed that somebody here may produce threads with "hard science" consequences.

[CrudeHypothesis]

WHO HERE agrees that the idea of indexing poll results by category could at least work? It would be nice to have a tree to browse, and click 'personality specific/INTJ/' and go "Oh look, someone done a poll on what candy INTJs like most, I'll check that out".

Originally Posted by bladeszcat

INTJs, in particular, are also more prone than the next MBTI type to be in love with their own voices, since they've systematically removed most others. Aside from such headstrong behaviour, you're also combating the general attention deficit disorder the internet is. Actual organization of the information and funneling all INTJs through them might be necessary, which may be unlikely owing to the ADD itself, aside from whispering Police State. How does one net such myriad subjective perspectives without giving in to the collective hubris of the int "J" need for closure? In the interest of perspective aggregation, I've linked something that may help a little. It substantiates my point a little more, though. I happened to be the OP, so I could see the similar patterns between what's being said and this topic. And I'm still not sure if I'm not spamming the thread. I absolutely agree with the intent behind this thread, though. It will be interesting to see where this discussion leads.

Something tells me that a forum for INTPs would agree to wiki idea immediately, if they hadn't thought of and implemented it already. I hypothesize this idea would mainly work for MBTI theories, which were originally concocted by the INTP Jung himself.

Originally Posted by Alberto

Well, you may find no instance of such a thing here. I mean these are mostly philosophical forums, there is one section about science and math too but it can be hardly considered as a place where scientists gather to reach conclusions with technological or implementable consequences - even mere scientifical advanced/hard theory would still need to be tested, and testing is something you cannot do on a forum. This aside from the fact there is a vast population of persons who deem themselves "scientists" because they have taken a couple of Math exams, or who deem themselves rational because they have seen a couple of Tv shows. Maybe you want to specify better what you meant by "conclusions". I doubt you were thinking indeed that somebody here may produce threads with "hard science" consequences.

Since I started this thread, I have come to realize, through discussion, that the idea of deriving conclusions would not work for a lot of threads and topics, simply due to the nature of their discussions. I have another idea thanks to that. Closed threads should be better categorized so that they can be found by those who look for them. In order to categorize them accurately, a summary should be written for closed threads detailing the main points that were covered. After all, a lot of the time threads go in different directions and cover a lot of interesting content that isn't suggested in the original thread title and opening post. The keyword search only helps if you know exactly what you're looking for, but it's not as easy to stumble upon things that are interesting like Wikipedia is for example.

Is anyone else going to try to come up with ideas besides me?

[Storm]

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking to be done. If you're trying to browse by topic, the tag system would be your best bet. For instance intj vs istj brings up all threads that have been tagged with that. If you are looking for something more specific, like a poll on candy, then a title search for "poll candy" should bring up any threads on that.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Storm
	I'm not sure exactly what you are looking to be done. If you're trying to browse by topic, the tag system would be your best bet. For instance intj vs istj brings up all threads that have been tagged with that. If you are looking for something more specific, like a poll on candy, then a title search for "poll candy" should bring up any threads on that.

It would be nice to browse polls by category, rather than search for them.
It's the difference between Wikipedia/YouTube and Google respectively.

P.S. I'm merely proposing a hypothetical method to address the issues raised in the OP,
anyone else got any suggestions or am I the only one that's noticed this and thought about it?

[JTG]

Browsing (in the sense you seem to mean it) and searching are nearly the same thing, from a technical standpoint. In database terms - and what is a forum but a database - it's the difference between a query and a filter.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Perhaps I just have this urge to structure my environment in a way that makes more sense.

[Storm]

By category do you mean by subforum? The advanced search let's you do that by putting "Poll" in the "search titles only" box, and then selecting a category.

[CrudeHypothesis]

I have a vision... people will get stuck in 'INTJ Forum loops' like they do on YouTube, in stead of going through the Unread Posts button

[Rudy]

I think the suggestion misunderstands the nature of INTJforum in a particular way, to be honest. The goal of the forum is not to be a repository of knowledge, but rather an arena of discussion. Recorded "conclusions", selected in an as of yet unspecified manner, can lead only to stagnation, and intimidate those who wish to begin the discussion again from their own point of view.

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Rudy
	I think the suggestion misunderstands the nature of INTJforum in a particular way, to be honest. The goal of the forum is not to be a repository of knowledge, but rather an arena of discussion. Recorded "conclusions", selected in an as of yet unspecified manner, can lead only to stagnation, and intimidate those who wish to begin the discussion again from their own point of view.

Ok, I understand that, but one thing is for certain, and that is that a lot of INTJs come here to learn about their own personality. There should at least be a repository of knowledge for that, because nowhere else is there this many INTJs. If we don't build it ourselves for our type, who is going to do it for us? Some other people that have no idea what they're talking about, and that's what's currently plastered all over the internet in contradictory type descriptions.

[FruitLoop]

	Originally Posted by Ravendicon
	tl;dr

That says it all.

Its actually quite difficult to get something read.

[Alberto]

You know there is nothing wrong in the idea itself, aside its feasability - as you realized, most threads include no such a thing like a "conclusion".

However, you have also to keep in mind copyright issues. What you write belongs to you. You have agreed that it can be on display here, and that (for instance) there could be a banner or so, however any significant change in this setting (that is, anything that goes beyond design changes) and that reallocates contributions rearranging them (or, actually even worse, a few of them) in a completely different setting is susceptible of falling into the category of a "derivative work" which would imply a copyright infringment if the open consent of every involved author is not obtained first.

Doesn't seem practical, though in theory could be interesting.
But I myself might object (or even you, for that matter: at any rate you would probably want to retain a full review and approval right before any of your posts are reallocated) before ever seeing what I write placed in a different context where it may look something different from what I originally meant.

Or, last, maybe somebody does not want to be on a wiki but s/he is ok to be in a less formal environment like a forum you know.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Don't the moderators reserve all rights to moderate at their discretion? They move threads, delete posts, attach new threads to existing ones and make new threads out of deviant yet interesting posts. It can be a little confusing, but it's for the best, right? It's probably all about encouraging discussion.

Now that I think about it, coming to conclusions discourages discussion. What am I saying? Every conclusion I read becomes a launching pad for new discussion. I've never read something new and not got dozens of new ideas. Coming to even a few conclusions on the topics that have been done to death is a way to promote new discussion.

[Alberto]

	Originally Posted by CrudeHypothesis
	Don't the moderators reserve all rights to moderate at their discretion? They move threads, delete posts, attach new threads to existing ones and make new threads out of deviant yet interesting posts. It can be a little confusing, but it's for the best, right? It's probably all about encouraging discussion. (...)

Yes but this is done within a framework we have already given our consent to: deleting a post or leaving a post intact and simply moving the whole of the thread, still intact, to another forum does not create derivative works (it is not even a copy: it's just placing the existing item, with its whole context unaltered, in another room within the same palace, all write/read rights still the same).

Splitting a thread may still be within legal boundaries as long as nothing more than that is done and the texts can still be located, unaltered under any other regard, withion the place authors have already consented them to exist.

Deleting an offensive post is fine (and does not import copy-right issues, at most delete-right lol there is no longer even the "copy" you see). Moving a whole thread within the existing framework without tampering with the texts (which instead it would be if they extract portions to represent them as a "conclusion") is legitimate.

However, data mining to represent existing data in an altogether different setting (say a wiki, which really means reproducing the texts elsewhere, namely to produce... copies), maybe even leaving the thread no more intact but picking a few instances and rearranging them in a different fashion than the one the authors placed them in (say thread 1005 I extract 5 posts, I rearrange them how/in the order I prefer, and I feature them elsewhere...) becomes a type of derivative work - one really needs to be very cautious and ask for the consent of all the involved authors (being them the eventual holders of their own copyright), and store that consent in a persistent manner.

ps only the owner may produce copies of his/her own text - or make the so called "fair use" of the texts of the others: a quote or a few, not too ample, functional to an original work of your own, and preferably with a link to the original source. This may be ok. Of course in a context that is not harmful for the quoted sources (critics are ok, quoting John, who worte here, in another place where his quote is, say, sorrounded with porn, maybe John does not like that...)

[CrudeHypothesis]

	Originally Posted by Alberto
	However, data mining to represent existing data in an altogether different setting ... becomes a type of derivative work. ps only the owner may produce copies of his/her own text ...

Ok, when I suggested a wiki, I was really just thinking about how things are structured on a wiki, and not what an actual wiki represents.

How about this for an idea. Once a thread (a thread that is designed to reach a conclusion) is X days old with no new posts, it gets locked. Then, the original owner or perhaps a moderator, can write a conclusive summary and make it the last post. That way, when people browse old threads and discussions, they look at the summary to decide if they want to read how it was arrived at, rather than the original post to see if they want to read to see where it goes. Or better yet, the reader can read either one or both, and choose how they want to read the thread from there. I think that's a better way to end threads rather than letting conversation taper off in plateaus.