Elliot Temple

From: "Fetteroll" <fetteroll@...>


> on 4/29/02 5:14 AM, Elliot Temple at curi@... wrote:
>
> > Why might conversations with no replies go away?
>
> I should have said they come to an end. One person talking isn't a
> converstaion. It's a monolog. And generally, inductively reasoning from
past
> behavior, people are looking for dialog.

No, you aren't using induction. You've *explained* that the posting stops
because monologues are boring and people tend to go seek dialogues
elsewhere instead.

> Though occasionally, and I've observed this also, some people do keep
> posting. Perhaps, theorizing here, because they just enjoy seeing their
> words appear even if no one is responding.

Now, again, you've used explanation. You pointed out a flaw in the
previous explanation. Some people like to hear themselves talk. And for
these people, continuing after everyone else stops makes perfect sense.

> I've never observed it to
> continue for long. Though I can't recall if it always stopped
spontaneously
> or if it needed moderator intervention.

And now you've come up with two explanations for why they eventually stop.
The first, although you didn't explicitly write it, is that although they
like listening to themselves talk, after a while they get bored of this.

And the second is that moderators get bored first.

> One way or the other we will add another data point to our collection.

Observations *are* useful. They can critisize theories. For example if
someone offered a theory that "if you don't respond to trolls, they will
never continue to post" and you remember an example of trolls who like to
hear themselves talk posting and posting, you could falsify the quiet-troll
theory by pointing to your observation. For the quiet-troll theory to
survive, it would need to be changed to include an explanation of the
contrary trolls. (Technically the quiet-troll theory is dead and this
would be quiet-troll theory 1.001a A similar theory, but not the same one)