Misplaced Pages

We were getting off-topic over there at Talk:Evolution. I'm not sure what your specific complaint is.

The specific complaint is one of the most common complaints of Misplaced Pages: that anti-elitism and no regulation of who gets to chip into an article results in a tremendous waste of time and unneccessary debating and article re-editing with passionate individuals who may not be the best qualified to be involved as editors. Simple as that, and it drives away a lot of people who might have a lot (maybe the most) to contribute. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a classroom, or a "meeting of the minds". I basically just wish people would keep away from articles outside of their field, especially when it comes to science. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've empathized with you before about the frustration of dealing with a multitude of eager novices, but I think your last sentence is incredibly arrogant and foolish. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, since "opinion" seems to be much more what this whole process is all about, rather than straight up information. The reason I wish that people would keep away from articles too far outside of their field (especially science), is because it results in a gigantic mountain of wasted effort from individuals who truly have something to contribute. TxMCJ 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely non-experts can contribute to articles in some ways and experts don't need to have their holy authority worshipped at every turn?

It's not about "holy authority", and your tone is really unnecessary. All I care about is accuracy and completeness. And more specifically, my answer to you is NO. Non-experts RARELY contribute to articles at the helpful level that Misplaced Pages writers believe themselves to be contributing, via mass revisions, endless changing of information, and endless debating about topics that are not debated among people working in the field. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend "holy authority" to be personally directed at you, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Experts are often truly horrendous writers. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statistically, non-experts are much worse. TxMCJ 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's the creationist vandalism that you're thinking of, that's a separate issue, but I'm sure an encyclopedia article on Evolution can benefit from the input of creationists in order to properly address the social effects of evolution's ideas. As for language, again we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. I've been trying to push for an explicitly technical version of the article, which an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages has the luxury of providing through its virtually unlimited space.

I hope you don't find it too personal for me to allude to your rollerderby and accordion interests that I came across during a quick Googling. Gnixon 22:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, although I can't imagine what the point is. It seems pretty irrelevant and certainly more OFF TOPIC than anything I've posted. TxMCJ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was simply trying to be friendly. Give it a shot sometime. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am plenty friendly with people who don't try my patience with politics, irrelevant points, and rhetoric. And you and I both know that your googling of me and publicizing of my irrelevant outside interests has *nothing to do* with "being friendly", so please quit trying to characterize it as such. Anyone can see through that. TxMCJ 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to that. Think what you want---and I can see how it'd be misunderstood when good faith erodes---but I was honestly only trying to be light and friendly. I like playing poker and chess, I'm an overweight jogger who can barely puff his way through 3 miles, and I occassionally butcher a few bars on the trumpet. Put it on a billboard if it makes you feel better. Gnixon 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make me feel better, or worse, and I frankly don't care one way or the other. My main question is WHY ARE YOU WASTING WIKIPEDIA SPACE AND MY TIME with these trivial personal conversations *at all*, when we are supposed to be here working on the article??? You might have time for it, but that doesn't mean everyone does. TxMCJ 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have to call B.S. on this, because if you were truly trying to be "friendly", you might have spent more time seeking out some of the relevant things you could have posted about me here, such as my education, my research projects, my teaching record, my writing awards, my invited educational NSF seminars on teaching in Evolution, my publications, my research funding history, etc. etc. and a number of other factoids you could have focused on that would have been much more relevant and supportive of my participation here. But instead, you choose to focus on my eccentric outside interests. So again, I call B.S. on the "friendly" excuse. Nobody's buying it. TxMCJ 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not B.S. Gnixon 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded at greater length to your comment on my talk page. This has been a very disappointing experience for me. Gnixon 00:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Manda,

Just disagreeing with your contention that our beliefs have always been "irrational, stupid", etc. I doubt this is historically true.

I didn't say "always", I said that there has always been stronger selection for gregariousness than for logical thought. That's all. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We haven't believed, for example, that keeping hot, burning coals in our trousers is a stupendous idea (by and large), or that we should stab our eyes out with sharp sticks as soon as we are able.

Agreed... and... your point is....???? TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the beliefs you might label as "irrational" are most likely beliefs that you believe are dated - that is, a superior system of belief has since arisen that you feel should replace it, but hasn't yet. Unsurprising - even the most powerful selective sweep takes time (to run with your evolutionary analogies), and we shouldn't necessarily despise the stubborn, willful less fit variant for refusing to die instantly.

The only argument I was making was one about education, and why attempts to educate fundamentalists and creationists in Evolutionary science will *almost always* fail. It is because of a greater human urge to be tribal/gregarious/accepted by your social cohort, than to be a rational and logical thinker. Even the most flawless logic and evidence will rarely convince a person to turn against the majority opinion of his or her "tribe". That's my only point, and it is one of the biggest reasons that the debate with creationists is completely pointless. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, as with natural selection, it's not always clear that superior fitness comes at no cost - pleiotropic effects may be in play, especially for the sort of religious beliefs I think you're referring to. The resistance that comes to abandoning them perhaps occurs because they enable other sorts of social interaction that might be destroyed by their replacement. Atheists, for example, lack convincing social mechanisms for exhortation to moral behavior, something religion excels at. It's thus not necessarily clear that it's more "irrational" to be one as opposed to the other, all things considered. Graft 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure, fine. None of this is really relevant to the point I was making, though. TxMCJ 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think this is necessarily true. Flawless logic is only germane if it's cogent, which means it must first be appreciated. When you're arguing with someone who simply has no apprehension of the relevant facts, your flawless logic and evidence aren't even in order. Then, of course, you might attribute it to competing tribalisms (or, rather, different sources of authority, I would say). But that's not because your flawless logic is failing to prevail over brutish tribalism, it's because the other party is not equipped to understand your argument. When I'm explaining things to you in Bantu, you're certainly not going to be convinced (I'm assuming you don't know Bantu, here), even if my reasoning is perfect. This isn't a triumph of tribalism over logic, it's tribalism vs. tribalism.

It's also not clear to me that this is an inferior manner of operating. Received wisdom is very useful. It's why we're having this conversation on the Internet, while octopuses are still struggling to open lids on jars.

Anyway, your categorical statement seems to be wrong - that education doesn't penetrate into the world of religious fundamentalists? Not true. Many of them routinely abandon their faith. I read one such account today, here. There are strong social systems set up to maintain that faith - I don't think it's obviously spontaneous or robust. It requires effort. Graft 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa, Graft, you are taking this whole thing on a needlessly complex tangent that I never intended. I am not talking about superior or inferior manners of operating, etc. My ONLY POINT has nothing to do with any of that. My ONLY POINT is that, for the most part, fundamentalist creationists will never, ever submit to even the most flawless logic, because natural selection has made it more important for humans to be accepted by their peers and be wrong, than be rejected by them and be right. Fundamentalist creationists will almost never "get" evolution because they don't WANT to "get" evolution, and thus, as you say, the logic will never be cogent or appreciated. I grow quickly weary of this topic, though, and don't want to spend a lot of time on it. But your opinions are valued and interesting to me, so thanks. TxMCJ 01:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. You triggered my evolutionary-psychology-bullshit button. Coming from an argumentative family and pluralistic culture, I don't believe your blithe observations about tribalism, and I don't think you have much reasonable evidence to support them.

Also, you seem to grow quickly weary of everything. Sorry you have such little patience - one hopes you're reserving it for your students instead. Graft 01:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, students who come to me to *learn something* get due patience from me, in that educational environment. I do run out of patience though, debating in a forum of individuals who are not academic peers, but demand my attention as if they were. I know this sounds a bit arrogant, and I apologize, but just imagine the metaphorical frustration of a carpenter trying to build a house surrounded by a hundred eager guys with hammers in hand who don't know a thing about construction methods or codes. It does get tiring when you're trying to get work done. Again, sorry if that seems arrogant -- it's just the truth. This is not the approach I take to education though, but I just don't feel that Misplaced Pages is intended to be an educational forum. TxMCJ 01:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your pardon - I may yet be a lowly graduate student, but that's good enough for most professors and post-docs to treat me as their academic peer, or at least to give me some level of courtesy. In all my interactions in academia I've never yet been faced with the attitude that I'm not well-credentialed enough to be debated. You seem to suffer from a severe rash of elitism that I think you might want to reconsider. It's largely misplaced. Yes, you've been trained as a biologist at Harvard. Congratulations. Take the chip off your shoulder. There are other people in the world besides yourself. Graft 14:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Gnixon "resisted the urge to write "what he said"" under this post. TxMCJ 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, Graft (and Gnixon). I've definitely felt this way myself many times in the past. I think the distinction, though, is not that I don't think you're "well credentialed enough to be debated", and that I am somehow the "elite authority", but more that: I don't come to Misplaced Pages to debate, and I seriously feel that 99% of the debate around here is counterproductive. I am sorry if that opinion comes across as arrogance, because I really do like to debate all kinds of topics over coffee, or in the classroom, or on a bar stool, et cetera. All these conversations you and I have had would be extremely fun and fascinating in another setting. I'm just not convinced that Misplaced Pages is the best or most productive *forum and context* for all of that debate, because here, we are trying to get a certain job done. Maybe some people view the Wiki community as a social community where it's fun to come and debate. I don't, and I am willing to accept that I might be in the minority, in that.

Consider this: working evolutionary biologists don't debate all these general concepts a *fraction* of the amount that the folks around here do. There is a lesson to be learned in that fact.

And I won't get into this much here, but your whole attitude about Harvard is also a very common form of anti-elitism that many alumni have to struggle against their whole lives. Harvard has such a mythologial stigma attached to it that is inescapable, that most alumni do *not* wear their alma mater on their sleeve because of the anti-elitism they encounter their whole lives. In short: the public tends to judge Harvard alumni as elitist snobs MUCH more than those alumni actually hold themselves to be elite, or conduct themselves to be snobs. I'm no brandy-sipping, turtleneck wearing, Vivaldi-listening, trust fund kid. I'm a roller skater and a Texas cowgirl/punk rocker who got interested in Evolution and pursued a degree in it, and then came back to Texas. I will be the first to say that Harvard's biology program is not among the best in the nation, and having gone through their system is not necessarily something I'm proud of. Most aspects of those years were a royal pain in the neck. Yes, I had certain experiences, learned certain things, and met certain people that I value now, in retrospect, but I'll be the last person on Earth to say that Harvard is somehow "better" or "more elite" than other institutions, and it is not something I necessarily take a great deal of pride in. It mainly seems to be the *rest of the world* that can't shake the ominous Harvard mythology, and so alumni have to battle that attitude most of their lives, and constantly defend themselves. It's not much fun. My alma mater is something I put on my resume because I have to, but not something I actively advertise. Sorry again if I've made you feel "unworthy of debate", but like I said, my objection has more to do with the fact that some activities (like writing encyclopedia articles, perhaps?) are just not helped or enhanced much by debate between too many people. Thanks, and sorry again. TxMCJ 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: I'd like to shake your hand someday, because I have a gigantic evolutionary-psychology-bullshit button of my own. I never meant to trigger a big ol' debate like this with my statement that (basically) "ignorance often prevails over logic because of social factors relating to the higher fitness of cooperative gregarious individuals". The context I said that in was within an side-argument and I never really meant to fight for the concept as a principle. I'm not too fond of evolutionary psychology either... Thanks TxMCJ 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Although, I *still* think that when presented with a trade-off between gregariousness and rationality, gregariousness always had the upper hand, at least in human evolution... Just an opinion, and not one I really need to fight for though :) TxMCJ 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't maligning your Harvard credentials, mostly because I've lived in Cambridge for ten years, and I've experienced and spent time in the academic environment both at Harvard and at MIT. Let me assure you, my attitude about Harvard comes from direct experience. But I wasn't reacting to my perception of Harvard (which would be dumb, since I'm at least as infected as you) - I was writing about you. I've edited the Evolution page for a long time, and believe me, you are NOT the first biologist to come through. You are also not the most educated or accomplished biologist to come through, and your insistence that you have a level of experience that somehow removes you from debate is simply wrong. So please, put down your ego. This is the way Misplaced Pages works. We're all anonymous, more or less, and we are NOT operating by meritocracy of degrees or years of academic experience. So your writing will be debated and your edits will be challenged, sometimes by idiots who you think are beneath you. If you don't like it, I suggest you go consult for Britannica or some other encyclopedia that follows the model you seem to favor. Assuming they'll have you, of course. Graft 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curious to know why you believe that *I* believe I am the "first biologist to come through" or the "most educated or accomplished" or exempt from debate. All I have ever said (which is by NO MEANS a unique opinion) is that the majority of the debate around here seems quite pointless, redundant, unnecessary, and time consuming. As you will see on the article talk page if you read back a bit, I *actively* engage in many types of debates around here, on things such as superfecundity, modes of selection, the adaptationist perspective, the process of "natural selection", et cetera et cetera. Your accusations that I do not engage in debate because I feel "above it", are completely wrong.

The kind of thing I'm talking about is the maddening fact (for example) that I had to spend (WASTE) a lot of time convincing you that superfecundity is fundamental to the mechanism of selection. I am sorry if your *opinion* is that superfecundity is not important, but if you go to any authoritative source, document, or writing about selection, and you will find that it is. That is the kind of debate I look down upon, and cannot tolerate -- debating topics that are elementary. I also don't like spending a lot of time debating largely philosophical side-topics (like our "tribalism" thread which erupted from a comment I made to explain why I think fundamentalists will never be convinced by rationality and logic). Disagree with me? Fine! But I'm not pushing to put any of that in the article, and thus I don't really have the time or interest to debate that kind of thing here. Meet me for coffee or a beer somewhere, and I'd be happy to.

And despite your claim that many other "more educated and accomplished" biologists have been through here, I was pretty surprised to find that the Evolution article as of 3 weeks ago or so:

• Made no mention of viruses
• Had incorrect definitions and descriptions of mutation
• Incorrectly described the recognized modes of selection
• Did not break-down and describe the mechanism of natural selection
• Made no mention of the significance of the natural hierarchical nested order of life
• Characterized all mutations as permanent
• Characterized drift as a "statistical" phenomenon
• Made no mention of reinforcement
• Presented speciation as a geographic phenomenon instead of a genealogical one

All of those topics are *elementary* to Evolution. I'm not trying to characterize myself as Gnixon's brilliant holy authority that showed up and saved the day, but the fact remains -- and this is not meant to be an insult or criticism of anyone -- that the article had some VERY SERIOUS deficiencies and inaccuracies before I took a whack at it. So whoever the more educated and accomplished biologists were that were here before me, I can only guess that their suggestions and edits have been long since dissolved by the constant editings of others, or that they (like me) were turned off by the whole politics of the thing.

After all's said and done: you can call me arrogant, call me an elitist, call me a bitchy Harvard roller-derby girl or whatever -- but the fact remains I only came here to improve the article, because it's the FIRST HIT you get on Google when you type in "Evolution". As someone who lives and breathes Evolution (and more importantly TEACHES it), I was justifiably concerned about the quality of such a high-profile article. Despite what you may think of me as a person, the only thing I really care about around here is that the article has been greatly improved, and nobody who knows the first thing about Evolution can deny that. TxMCJ 17:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm going to get *reamed* for this posting, but in the interests of furthering some measure of intelligent and constructive progress on this article, I am willing to take whatever fall may be needed. Especially since in the sections above, I have been accused of “spitting on people” and being generally arrogant and nasty and elitist and ungracious, et cetera, when in fact all I am doing is expressing frustration at micromanagement and the apparently constant need for debate. I feel that many things that have been said fall into the “personal attack” category, but I don’t really care too much about that. However, two can play at that game, but I want it made perfectly clear that the only reason I am even engaging in this B.S. at all right now (and posting this) is because I want to see the article grow and improve and not be hindered by social and political obstacles. This is not a personal attack. But what I need to say belongs right here, on the article talk page, and not the user pages. I am sorry it is messy but I feel it is necessary.

I recently reviewed the Evolution article contributions of another editor (Orangemarlin) who recently left here in total and utter exasperation with the incessant head-butting that occurs with Gnixon. Objectively, upon review, I generally found Orangemarlin's history of contributions to the Evolution article to be mostly high quality, on-topic, frequent, and helpful. He seems to work primarily on *the article*. On his talk page, (and I'm *really and sincerely sorry* to be doing this, I know it’s awful and possibly immoral, but in the interests of academic progress I feel that I must); Orangemarlin recently posted about Gnixon: “Hopefully, others will stand up to his POV pushing and ranting, and his subtle ownership of every article”, and also posted to Gnixon directly: “I cannot continue editing your articles. But I know what you're doing, and others will too. There are cooler headed individuals who will stand up to you. I don't have that kind of patience with an individual such as yourself, obviously intelligent, but with an agenda that is blind to what others believe. You are arrogant, loud and obtrusive--assuming good faith, maybe you think that's the way to force whatever belief set you have onto these articles”

My goal here is not to point fingers or mud-sling. But at great risk of lighting a fuse to a huge bomb now, I am hereby volunteering to be one of those “others” Orangemarlin called for, to stand up to the abovementioned ranting and subtle ownership. Contrary to what Gnixon would have you believe, Orangemarlin is not a troll. Look at his contributions to this article. I do not “side” with Orangemarlin for any reason other than the fact that he has contributed meaningful scientific content to this article, and belongs here (like I do) more than people who do not contribute scientific content. If I get my head cut off for posting this little diatribe, fine, but Gnixon’s involvement has apparently always been in *both* the Evolution and the ID articles (and interests?), which is a bit peculiar given the fact that he contributes precious little to the content of the Evolution article.

Gnixon, forgive me. But in the interest of academic progress, and by the indirect request from Orangemarlin who has contributed more to this article than many other editors have: I respectfully request that you back down significantly on your participation here. This is a *scientific article* and if you do not have scientific content to contribute, you will only continue to exasperate and infuriate hardworking contributors like myself and Orangemarlin. Thank you for the "facilitation" you do, but if you are not contributing meaningfully, it unfortunately becomes one-step-forward, two-steps-back. Forgive me for doing this, but “the call was put out there” and I just felt that I had to answer it. My intention is not to insult you, humiliate you, offend you, anger you, or provide a personal attack. My only intention is to help this high-profile scientific article develop and improve for the millions of people around the world who may read it, and I strongly second the already-strongly-voiced opinion that you are an obstacle to that end. To the others: thank you for listening and I hope you will trust in my sincerity and good faith, no matter how arrogant or elitist you may personally feel that I am. TxMCJ 03:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of only improving this article, which MCJ opened with, I'll resist responding to much of what she said. I will make a couple points. Another editor described OM as a troll, not me, and I protested that he was not all troll despite many of his comments. I hope I haven't owned articles or pushed a POV---I've tried hard not to, but others should correct me if necessary. I've taken an interest in controversial articles on Misplaced Pages, and that has made me some enemies, but I've tried to focus that interest on improving the articles, and I've also contributed significantly to non-controversial articles where I'm an expert on the content---I'd appreciate whatever contributions to those articles can be made by anyone here. On this article, which has often been subject of many long-winded debates, I think I've helped to limit the amount of bickering over creationist objections to evolution so that experts can focus on improving the scientific content of the article. I knew it would be a thankless task, but I never expected to be criticized for it. MCJ, I've appreciated your improvements to the scientific content of the article, but I personally think they've been outweighed by the attitude you've shown---lots of people can contribute as much expert knowledge, but not many would be so rude. Clearly we're both interested in improving this article, and clearly we both think the other has a net negative impact. I suggest we both try to continue making the contributions that have been recognized as positive, and that we both try to keep our big mouths shut regarding everything else. I just want this article to get better, and I think you do, too. Gnixon 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)