Yet, the problem is with some of the answers and comments. Also, 'problem' is perhaps to strong a word, but I don't particularlly like them. Because they precsiely suggest that 'mathematicians think they know better.' For example, they seem to 'know' that one should order authors alphabetically. In which context or for whom is this a useful suggestion? In any case, it seems to be of immense importance (with 50 something upvotes for the comment). Perhaps this is an unforgiving interpretation, but the main (only?) message here seems to be that 'we mathematcians' are such a nice egalitarian community while others are not. And, with slightly less assertive formulations, IMO this could have been avoided.

I am willing to admit to a bit of silliness in insiting on precise formulations, and each contribution alone would be fine, but the collection creates a general tone that somewhat annoys me. But, perhaps I am also over-sensitive here.

I find your analogy a little disingenuous, kind of like asking "If you wanted solid information, would you prefer an opinion or a fact?" Of course a fact is preferable, but such as is with like well-informed neutral parties, they need not necessarily exist. But if I had a choice between a biased expert answer, and an not-particularly-informed neutral answer, I would choose the former. In any case, the topic of "general strategies for conducting one's day-to-day business" falls, to my mind, in the "very few facts exist" category.

Here is (what I would interpret as) a "success story": academic departments/colleges/universities very frequently have to spend much time debating the precise wording of rules and regulations for various bodies (undergraduates, transfer students, professors on leave, visiting professors, etc.). I have not infrequently noticed, in line with Emerton's top-rated answer to Jordan's question, instances of wording ending up significantly clearer because a mathematician (or similarly-minded individual) testing the proposed wording against the extremes of the definitions involved. (e.g., "The worst-case scenario is a transfer student who has taken X classes here, leaves for Y years, and then files for a z% financial aid award. Our proposed procedure would have have us borrowing money from her!", or some other such thing.) I don't think it's particularly hubricial* to believe that this mode of thinking can lead to an objectively better state of affairs.

*: sadly, not an actual word

By analogy, if you want solid information on the merits of the programme of some political party, do you think that representatives of that party are the best source for this? Or would you rather ask somewhat neutral people that are only familiar with said party but not directly involved?

In particular, I observe that so far it seems nobody came up with a real-life 'success story', that is a situation where they made a math-habits suggestion and somebody later or immediately said this was good advice; that is something I would consider interesting. For the opposite phenomenon there are examples. And, on the other question there is an individual success.

I don't understand. Mathematicians don't have to speculate as to what might prove advantageous were they to ever find themselves in a non-mathematical context, since the vast majority of their lives are thusly spent!

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that to get good answers on JSE's question (in the interpretation most seem to have) one should rather ask people close to mathematicians that are not mathematicians. While for Gerry's answer one could say the mathematicians collect together what they individually learned in there interaction with non-mathematicians.

Genral: My personal stance is that both are sufficiently far from the usual standards that any detailed analysis which one is more/less on/off-topic is a bit pointless, but still since it came up repeatedly I wanted to point out that even this is perhaps not so clear as some like to make it look.

I'm sorry for conflating your opinion of the answers to JSE's question with your opinion of the question. Also, I enjoyed your topological joke.

Best wishes,

Matthew

Now, not to you specifically: Perhaps this episode is a great illustration just how good mathematicians are at being self-critical, and of course also humble.

Finally, I would be inclined to close followup soft questions because they run the risk of compounding and causing too many soft questions on MO.

One can (and perhaps should) sometimes make an exception to usual standards. I agree with Emerton that JSE had in some sense the 'better' motivation (which is why I wrote 'very little' and not 'no' in my first comment); though I wonder were the people are that typically send such questions to blogs. Still, I think Gerry's question would have been a nice counter-balance. While JSE question itself is perhaps not self-congratulatory, in my opinion some of the contributions are (to a certain extent this is perhaps inevitable) and this at least needs a counter-balance.

So, now that the one is closed, I voted to close the other one; as subjective and argumentative.

Finally, I second Thierry's second paragraph.

In any case, he gave a sensible and well-articulated justification for his question, and I think that it was an appropriate use of MO.

I don't have a strong opinion on Gerry's question, although I don't think the motivations are spelled out as clearly as in JSE's question.

Mathematical habits...

More recently, Gerry Myerson

Unmathematical habits...

which is not so well-received (3 votes to close in half an hour)

In any case, since in particular the latter might cause some discussion I create this thread.