tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Snob)

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8162)

2010-08-06T22:27:52-07:00

@Andy: There's really nothing I can do about it now, but I take your point to heart.

Andy Putman comments on "Snob" (8161)

2010-08-06T22:15:23-07:00

@Harry : Let me repeat what I said above. If you wouldn't say it on MO, then don't say it on MU.

Maybe you won't get suspended from MO (though if I were a moderator I'd consider it), but certainly people on MO are very aware of your actions on MU and many people have posted their strong disapproval here on meta. I'd think about what kind of impression this leaves people who will decide your future (eg grad school admissions and hiring).

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8159)

2010-08-06T21:41:46-07:00

That was not on MO. I wouldn't think of speaking like that on MO.

AndrewL comments on "Snob" (8158)

2010-08-06T21:30:43-07:00

@Ian: We're not snobbish, just selective. Maybe you could take your head out of your ass for a second and realize that, for example, just any layperson shouldn't have the right to speak at the ICM. – 97832123

Holy crap-and you guys tossed ME out on my fat butt for speaking out of turn?!?

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8153)

2010-08-06T11:06:15-07:00

I will make sure to add a disclaimer at the bottom of any such post.

Kevin Lin comments on "Snob" (8152)

2010-08-06T10:23:11-07:00

Harry: evidently many of us here myself included are not comfortable with you acting as or appearing to be a spokesperson for MO. I hope that you will be more careful in the future about this, both here at MO and meta.MO, as well as anywhere else online and offline. Thank you.

Andrea comments on "Snob" (8150)

2010-08-06T08:04:15-07:00

As both comments are now gone, I'm puzzled about what are we talking about.

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8148)

2010-08-06T05:36:58-07:00

Dear Emerton,

I note only that I was responding to a post that was, in light of the facts, at best uninformed and facile, and at worst ignorant and unnecessarily insulting. I was merely returning the gesture (a rude one, at that). I also don't really agree about the "intrinsic merit" of the questions here compared to that of the questions there.

Emerton comments on "Snob" (8146)

2010-08-06T05:17:26-07:00

Dear Harry,

I think that your comment was misguided in almost every aspect: in its language (unnecessarily rude), in it's use of the first person plural (you don't speak for MO), and in its invocation of the ICM (quite possibly, the poster has not heard of the ICM, and even if they have, doesn't care about it or have any sense of its professional significance). Even your choice of adjective (selective) is probably not the best, although it is literally correct. I think it would be better to simply explain (if any response is necessary at all) that MO is not meant as a Q&A site for general mathematics questions, but has a more restricted focus. (So the selectivity is not based on the intrinsic merit of questions, but simply on their relevance to the (very restricted) area of focus of MO.)

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8142)

2010-08-06T03:54:58-07:00

I didn't delete it. It was deleted by a moderator, and I was "modded out" for two days. Civil disobedience and all that.

I don't understand why making the ICM reference is all that absurd. The difference is in degree (admittedly a pretty big difference) only.

Hailong Dao comments on "Snob" (8141)

2010-08-06T03:53:40-07:00

@Harry: thanks for deleting it! My point was that using "speaking at ICM" to discuss "participation on MO" is quite absurd too (not to mention the language). I would have no issue if you made clear that what you wrote is your own opinion, but the way you wrote it (to me, admittedly a non-native speaker) may cause casual readers to think it is the common attitude on MO.

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8135)

2010-08-06T03:04:36-07:00

@Hailong: To explain that quote, my point was that if we took the reasoning to its logical conclusion, having JQ Public speaking at the ICM, it's clearly absurd.

Yemon Choi comments on "Snob" (8127)

2010-08-05T23:44:16-07:00

Bill: the examples of our egregious inconsistency that you allude to should be linked to, no? We could learn from historians in this regard in terms of source attribution and analysis.

Yemon Choi comments on "Snob" (8126)

2010-08-05T23:39:53-07:00

I would like to think that if we give reasons and sympathy (if not empathy) as we close questions, then perhaps the perception of snobbery on our part would be ameliorated.

But if not, then could I venture that my day job involves helping people other than myself or my collaborators, without thought of reaping benefit for my own work or entertainment or edification. MO is not part of my job.

sean tilson comments on "Snob" (8125)

2010-08-05T22:16:13-07:00

We are called snobs because we talk over peoples heads when they ask us what we do. I was excited about a workshop recently and a friend asked what it was about and i sent her the program. she said she did not understand it... why would she? she is not in math. There is a common arrogance expressed by lay people that they know all about math because they took it in high-school. This doesn't seem to happen so much in other subjects. I think it is safe to say that we all find it frustrating. I find it especially frustrating when I see MO users being referred to as snobs because of standards.Maybe cross pollination with MSE could help our cause.

you might be interested to note that there is a proposed Calculus.SE at Area 51 right now.

PS, @Harry: sometimes you dont help, but as jose said, you are spot on and i sympathize with your frustration.

Bill Dubuque comments on "Snob" (8121)

2010-08-05T20:41:38-07:00

@VP Yes, that's yet another class of inconsistency in question closing. How is a newbie supposed to make heads or tails of what is on-topic with no good model to extrapolate from? When off-topic or very soft questions often sit on the front page can we blame newbies for inferring that such posts are on-topic at MO? And when we swiftly and forcefully close their soft questions - but not ours - should we be surprised at being calleds snobs for doing so? I think not.

VP comments on "Snob" (8115)

2010-08-05T19:57:50-07:00

Bill, at various times I was quite concerned with inconsistency of questions closure and raised it on meta, but clearly this isn't the only issue shaping public perception of MO, and not even the main one. As far as "snobbery" is concerned, it can be expressed in many ways that are quite independent of closing questions. Often, the problem goes the other way: many clearly inappropriate questions (e.g. K-12 homework type) are very helpfully answered before, or even instead of, getting closed, which runs counter to both the stated purpose of the site and refutes the charge. In other words, there is a broad spectrum of outcomes.

More generally, I agree with José that a healthy dose of intellectual elitism is nothing to be ashamed of, especially, since the target audience is mathematics professionals. Maintaining high standards is rarely popular with general masses, be it teaching service math courses or running a question and answer mathematics website with research focus. FWIW, the comment cited by Mariano is very mild in this regard.

"Questions sitting on the front page" is a fundamental feature of the website, so each of us will do well to exercise some tolerance, even though many or even most of them at any given time may not appeal to a particular user or a group.

Andy Putman comments on "Snob" (8114)

2010-08-05T19:53:01-07:00

@Harry : I think you shouldn't post comments on MU that you would be unwilling to post on MO. I haven't spent much time on MU and thus don't know the substance of the debates there, but I cringe at people thinking your tone reflects the sentiments of the broader mathematical community.

Bill Dubuque comments on "Snob" (8113)

2010-08-05T19:52:30-07:00

@Mariano: I beg to differ: I think that every question should be judged by its merit, not by the reputation of its author. In fact it might be better if all questions were anonymous to help avoid such issues. That's not to say that we shouldn't go out of our way to attract highly-valued members. But bending the rules is not one of those ways.

José Figueroa comments on "Snob" (8112)

2010-08-05T19:51:39-07:00

1) I don't believe that 97832123 represents MO 2) The choice of words is unfortunate 3) The germ of the idea, though, that MO strives to a certain ideal of intellectual discourse, is spot on.

Hailong Dao comments on "Snob" (8111)

2010-08-05T19:47:58-07:00

@Ian: We're not snobbish, just selective. Maybe you could take your head out of your ass for a second and realize that, for example, just any layperson shouldn't have the right to speak at the ICM. – 97832123

Dear 97832123: as someone who is not speaking at the ICM anytime soon, I am a little uncomfortable with this comment representing "we" MO users.

Mariano comments on "Snob" (8110)

2010-08-05T19:43:44-07:00

Bill, there are 2 and a half pages of people who can vote to close, at 35 people a page. I would be depressed if that many people were not able to come up with inconsistency with regards to what they value.

I do not see it as a bad thing that a community like ours show interest and appreciation in some of its members. Why would be treat John Stillwell or JS Milne in the same way we treat unknown (google)?

Bill Dubuque comments on "Snob" (8105)

2010-08-05T19:12:39-07:00

@Mariano: I think part of the problem has to do with the inconsistency of question closure. Can you blame newbies for calling MO snobs when their off-topic posts are quickly closed yet similar off-topic posts by well-known MO members are sitting on the front page for all to see? Double-standards always cause problems.

@97832123 Your extremely rude comment there will only serve to reinforce such perceptions of MO.

Akhil Mathew comments on "Snob" (8098)

2010-08-05T18:54:43-07:00

I don't think so. It's not snobbery to require a high level of mathematics (any more than it would be for a physics MO to exclude high school questions).

For MSE (I second Mariano's proposal of that as the new acronym), note that right now, a lot of the active users are just MO users who want to let their hair down and answer questions at a lower level (or in my case, be able to answer questions). So I doubt there will be much anti-MO sentiment built up on the website, since they (or we, I should say) have a strong influence on the culture.

Harry Gindi comments on "Snob" (8097)

2010-08-05T18:50:26-07:00

I get the impression that this reputation is what has kept away the real pests.

José Figueroa comments on "Snob" (8095)

2010-08-05T18:33:15-07:00

Épater le bourgeois? :)

Seriously, though, I don't think that this is something to be alarmed by. One person's snobbery is another person's intellectual elitism and I, personally, do not think that's something to be ashamed of. I would be surprised if the intended audience of MO (researchers in mathematics and cognate areas) would shirk away from participating in the site based on any such perception of snobbery.

Mariano comments on "Snob" (8093)

2010-08-05T18:24:16-07:00

I just read the first comment to the M.SE (yes: I got tired of typing Math.SE...) question http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1648/how-do-i-figure-out-what-kind-of-distribution-this-is/1650#1650

I've seen remarks to the same effect elsewhere.

Should something be done to change that perception?