BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Head Shop... too popular, not popular enough?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:35 / 07.06.05
Well, fair enough... but I don't think anyone's demanding that you do. I mean, if I was talking about ejecting anyone who couldn't quote Benjamin at the drop of a hat I'd have to purge myself, and not in a good way. Is there a good way? In which case, one can work elsewhere. Take the medicalisation of childbirth. I think in that case people could have handled the anecdote better - lots of interesting things could come out of it, about, for example, the way midwives start by learning about complex and horrible births - that's something I didn't know about, and it's certainly interesting that the training is structured that way. That got rather lost not because of the anecdote itself but in this case because TTTIFTR disagreed so vehemently with your conclusions, and got quite heated in his response. I was wondering whether to intervene and call for a deep breath there, but I'm not exactly batting a hundred in the calming stakes at present....
 
 
Olulabelle
22:22 / 07.06.05
That whole little spat about Socrates and sophistry and pretension and the meaning of such things is one of the reasons I don't post in the Headshop much. I read almost all the threads, even the ones in which I have to read every post twice. I am so sad that sometimes I even print whole threads out at work so that I can read them in the park in my lunch hour. Headshop on the move, old-fashioned style.

But all too often threads turn into debates about the preciseness of contributions rather than debate about the subject itself, and the reason for starting the thread gets lost in the discussion about quality of content. I realise that to a certain extent this has to happen in order to keep the threads viably Headshoppy, but I think it happens too much.

I know that the Headshop is a place for debate rather than off-the-cuff opinion, but the almost inevitable mid-thread argument over semantics makes it a scary forum to post in. I can also see that if a post consists mainly of messy thinking then people will rightly be confronted on their particular use of a word, or a phrase. I just think sometimes the way it's done is a bit harsh.

Witty and erudite sarcasm does reign on Barbelith and if you're not on the receiving end of it it can be wonderfully entertaining to read. I know when people are pulled up on something the best thing they could do is admit it, but the world and Barbelith isn't like that; people don't like backing down, especially in public.

I suppose I think moderators with the education and knowledge to consistently pick people up on specifics could help with Headshop Fear by occasionally raising issues in a slightly less humiliating manner and by showing a little bit of clemency now and then, because often reading a Headshop thread can feel a bit like cheering as a person is helplessly dragged toward the lions.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:01 / 07.06.05
Well my point is really that when I first arrived here so many of the threads were so detailed that you'd get called up for bringing up the part of it you did get because it was outdated or the debate wasn't focused in the area that the thread had reached. That wasn't conducive to allowing people to engage, yet alot of the more academic posters regard that as a positive time for the Headshop. But if a post's not off-topic and a poster wants to bring something up then it's not unreasonable to allow them their time to contribute and we have to leave room for people who are maybe reluctant, as new to the board, to enter a thread without expecting them to start an off-shoot because maybe the thread is so in-depth somewhere else in the same subject area. The type of language we use here can be difficult to understand and work with when you're new as has been proved by the people who start off as aggressive and bolshy and end up communicating completely normally with the rest of barbelith.

I'm not arguing against moderators stepping in to discussions but I don't want anyone to have a primarily negative experience of the forum now. A well-reasoned post should be acceptable if it's in the general context of the thread.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:04 / 07.06.05
I was wondering whether to intervene and call for a deep breath there

And you didn't really need to, thankfully I'm quite calm at the moment and understood where he was coming from and indeed that I wasn't presenting my argument from anything other than a personal level.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:48 / 08.06.05
Well, I must admit I was on paranoidwriters side in this case...

I also want to heart Nina for her first post in this thread, I think there is a lot of truth there, certainly from the side of someone who considers himself outside of the 'Oxbridge Elite', whether or not it consists of people who never actually went to Oxbridge. I started those deliberately simplistic threads a while back because I wanted to start the sort of threads I could contribute to. For better or worse the Head Shop is the only forum I feel I have to set aside a bulk of time to look at (I don't know whether the magical types here feel the same about the Temple) and most days I just don't have that luxury. Otherwise Haus was right, pure philosophy' was not the right term, I am that befuddled ten year old.

Maybe we could Wikinews the Head Shop?

Actually, you could say that the problem Haus perceives with the Head Shop is even more serious with the Lab. Beyond threads that positively scream for anecdotalage there's rarely anything beyond someone saying "lookit!" and other people going "sweeeeeeet!"
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:25 / 08.06.05
You're digging up an argument everyone else is trying to move on from, Flowers. If you can create a coherent explanation of the "side" you are supporting, I'd love to hear it, but let's try not to be partisan, eh? Because otherwise the people who are trying not to be dragged back in are at a bit of a disadvantage...

Vincennes mentioned the three-year-old thread issue earlier, and I think I agree that that can be a problem - my approach recently has been to provide a link to earlier threads where they are relevant, but not to bump them, on the grounds that discussions can go in very different directions - so, treat the old threads as something like a resource rather than a living entity. It might be worth locking threads as a matter of course once they are referenced in a new thread as source material, to keep all the discussion going on from it in one place - not sure about this. Thoughts?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:27 / 08.06.05
ertainly from the side of someone who considers himself outside of the 'Oxbridge Elite', whether or not it consists of people who never actually went to Oxbridge.

Incidentally, this is officially bewildering me. I always assumed that when people talked about the "Oxbridge Elite" they meant people who had gone to Oxford or Cambridge. If having gone to Oxford or Cambridge has nothing to do with wheher or not one is a member of this group, how do you work it out? What's to stop everyone or noone being perceived as part of this elite?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:24 / 08.06.05
Oh, it's purely based on my personal prejudice and how many cans of Red Bull I've had.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:27 / 08.06.05
Well, as the person who brought up "Oxbridge", let me explain what I was thinking. In part, and this may be just me, Headshop style debate is sometimes stylised in a way that I asociate with certain elite universities. Detached, aggressive, erudite and impersonal would be words that spring to mind, and peopled by those whose confidence in their own intellect is fairly unshakeable. This isn't exclusive to any uni, of course, and isn't even that bad a thing of itsekf, but the reality of the association matters far less than its perceived importance.

Clearly, it is ridiculous to think that there is a conspiracy of Oxbridgers running things. But the Headshop does generate a sense of exclusion - I'm getting this from speaking to others and comments generally - which is worth addressing. For instance look at olulabelle's post above. I hope olulabelle doesn't mind me using her as an example, but here we have someone who prints out Headshop threads to read them carefully. I don't think there can be any doubt that olulabelle should be contributing and feel welcome to contribute to the Headshop. Yet reading her post you see a whole bunch of negatives; erudite sarcasm, Headshop Fear, humiliat[ion] and clemency.

The impression given is that of someone intimidated by the conventions of a somewhat elitist club. My feeling is that this impression - which I realise I may have unhelpfully labelled using the term "Oxbridge" - is more widespread. And thats a problem.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
10:41 / 08.06.05
It might be worth locking threads as a matter of course once they are referenced in a new thread as source material, to keep all the discussion going on from it in one place - not sure about this. Thoughts?

I quite like that idea -I used to occasionally go through the archives and read the older threads, and there was usually something I was interested in talking about a bit more but didn't want to bump an ancient thread and either have everyone read all seven pages or have the inevitable 'have you read all of this' discussion occur three new posts in.

It might also tie in with what Nina was saying about being told off because the thread has moved on from a particular point of discussion; perhaps if people were encouraged to take something said in an older / another thread as a starting point for new threads on similar topics? That might feel like a bit of re-treading the same ground for people who've been around here for ages, but if it was an avenue of thought that was unexplored in the original thread that aspect of things might be minimised. That could even be done on the same basis as Our Lady's 'Moral Case For...' threads -lots of threads started by quotations from older threads with quite short introductions / elaborations. If that's deemed appropriate anyway -I quite liked it as an approach for the reasons Lurid mentioned (this may have been why it worked in that there was no *cost* if one of the threads sunk without a trace). Taking ideas from another thread worked quite well in the 'aims of teaching American literature' debate, anyway, so my enthusiasm for this is partly based on that...
 
 
sleazenation
11:53 / 08.06.05
As a rule, Head Shop posters, to my mind at least, require two things; a genuinely inquiring mind and a level of articulacy.

These qualities are within the reach of all posters and do not necessarily require recourse to a university education be it from oxbridge or otherwise, although such an education would undoubtly helped one achieve a level of articulacy.

I'd argue that part of having a genuinely inquiring mind is a willingness to read up on the the ideas being discussed and the intellectual honesty to consider the the countertheses.

The trouble is, as I see it is that not everyone entering the Head Shop, this thread or Barbelith is willing to display either an inquiring mind or any level of articulacy. I for one would hate to see the level of debate in the headshop lowering to accomodate those unwilling to demonstrate a genuinely inquiring mind and some small level of articulacy, something that I feel to be within the grasp of everyone.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:23 / 08.06.05
Incidentally, this is officially bewildering me. I always assumed that when people talked about the "Oxbridge Elite" they meant people who had gone to Oxford or Cambridge. If having gone to Oxford or Cambridge has nothing to do with wheher or not one is a member of this group, how do you work it out? What's to stop everyone or noone being perceived as part of this elite?

Haus, to be perfectly honest with you I think you're the only person here who actually is getting hung up on the Oxbridge element. Everyone else has just used it as a vague word to describe a group, the word is inadequate certainly but we're describing an emotional reaction to exclusion here and trying to keep it neat, which is fucking difficult. Oxbridge is only a convenient word and one that describes the 'best' of British education so it's easily understood in this context.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:35 / 08.06.05
The trouble is, as I see it is that not everyone entering the Head Shop, this thread or Barbelith is willing to display either an inquiring mind or any level of articulacy.

This thread? Really?

I've just gone back over the whole thing and (regardless of whether you agree with their point of view or not) it appears to me that everyone is showing an inquiring mind and level of articulacy.

I'm really confused as to why you would say it's not evident here.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:29 / 08.06.05
Nina: I'm just trying to define our terms... "Oxbridge" seems to me an unnecessarily confusing terminology, because it describes behaviours that many people on Barbelith who did not go to Oxford or Cambridge have, and others who did go to Oxford or Cambridge don't. It's also based on stereotype of what constitutes an "Oxbridge" education, which I think is where we differ - you're assuming that that stereotype can be described using the term wiithout that having any impact on how people perceive the term and its recipients... I dunno. It feels inexact to me, but if everybody now knows what it _dooes_ mean - that is, exemplifying a style based on analytical approaches, potentially cheese-paring refinement of premises, referencing of sources, kind of thing - then we can work from there. I just can't shake the feeling that, for example, if a behaviour were to be identified as Mancunian and categorised in largely negative terms, the explanation that you didn't actually have to come from Manchester to be described by it would result in a few spit-takes. Then again, since Oxbridge is an imaginary place in itself, maybe that works. Perhaps "incongruously academician"?
 
 
Tom Coates
22:40 / 08.06.05
I certainly don't believe that the atmosphere in the Head Shop is any more exclusive, cliquey or whatever than the Temple's is - each has a very distinct atmosphere and I think that's probably a positive thing. Also as Sleaze said above, I think it would be an enormous shame if we had to consider that the (yes, occasionally intimidating) level of discussion that the Head Shop is associated with had to be lowered to make people feel less intimidated. I'm really interested in having people know a lot and be invested and become expert as long as they're prepared to share that knowledge and support the less overtly trained members of the board engage in those discussions. I think we are all elevated by having people talking at the edges of expert-level around the site, and to have the opportunity to learn from them.
 
 
Olulabelle
11:13 / 09.06.05
Absolutely.

I don't think people should step down their standard of debate at all but mostly I don't think the intimidation comes as a result of the expert level of conversation.

I think the experts should help people step up their level of debate by not being so obviously patronising in a 'run away now, you silly little person' kind of way, since that approach doesn't help anyone learn anything.

Equally and obviously, Barbelith is not a creche.

It's a question of balance.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:44 / 09.06.05
Something needs to go in the guidelines about that, then. I'd write it myself but I'm not so good with wording and haven't got the all clear.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:05 / 09.06.05
I perceive this discussion as being about the Headshop as it's changed and how we react to that change, how we want to moderate the forum in the face of looser and less academic interaction. What this is not about is a clique of people- frankly just because a group has a specific skillset doesn't mean they're trying to shut anyone else out, my point was about natural exclusion not intentional jollies. Clique doesn't enter into it, there is no clique, there are just people who find it a hundred times easier to enter into certain types of threads. If anything this thread should address that discussion isn't as complex as it was and how we can make it more so without alienating people who don't have the abilities that the more vocal Headshop poster once had. The Headshop has *lost* something over the last couple of years but it's really the perception of that loss that's important, the choice between regret and get-up-and-go.

I think it's important to remember that alot of people on this board also feel they can't post in Temple because a general religious discussion can't exist there.
 
 
Tom Coates
09:28 / 10.06.05
I have to say that the fact that the Temple is inaccessible to people not practising chaos magick is more of an anxiety to me than the Head Shop's current status.
 
 
Lurid Archive
09:49 / 10.06.05
But surely there is a big difference. The accessibility of the Temple won't be changed unless the scope of the forum is radically altered, but the same is not true of the Headshop.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:36 / 10.06.05
I think - and we're wandering offtopic - that the key word there might be "chaos'. The Temple can get a bit CHARGE TEH SIGIL...
 
 
Tom Coates
14:11 / 10.06.05
One thing that the Temple does do VERY well that the Head Shop doesn't is in terms of knowledge sharing. I'm not terribly interested in Chaos magick - except in its metaphorical terms as part of a spectrum of neurolinguistic programming, structuralist and post-structuralist philosophy etc that all operate to some extent around the fundamental power of language and its relationship to reality - but if someone comes onto the board and wants to know how to energise a sigil or whatever, it seems to me that they get that help.

Maybe the issue here is not about tone or language in the forum but that specific clash between newbie and old-timer. What we need, I suspect, is an understanding on the part of the newbie that if a thread is on a subject they don't understand that the appropriate post to it is not to dismiss it or reduce it to something trivial or something disconnected in their own lives, but to try and do a bit of background reading and/or explicitly ask for clarification on some of the words and issues involved. That helps everyone.

On the other side, the old-timers do - I think - have a responsibility to try and make their discussions comprehensible and understandable. I don't think that means that they have to debase the thinking or use baby-language, but I think it does mean that WHEN ASKED ABOUT ANY GIVEN CONCEPT, they should be prepared to make a minor detour to clarify what the discussion is about, or to point towards more useful resources online.

I think this could enormously help the sense that the Head Shop is hermetically sealed (which of course it isn't), but it does require intelligent and responsible behaviour from both sides that accepts that while knowledge and experience is a pre-requisite to talk about something at a high level, it is only a lack of knowledge that causes most of these problems and not (normally) of intelligence or ability. And that lack can be fixed.

On that related subject, I am still a little frustrated by the quality of the Laboratory thread - I really think the sheer range of issues surrounding medical ethics, experimentation, health, the greenhouse effect, science and technology, space travel etc. etc. should make that place one of the most vibrant places on the board, but the Head Shop does seem to still cherry-pick the ethical or intellectual threads leaving it as a place to point at shiny things. It's better than it was, but it could be so much more...
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply