Results of a GDP experiment. (recreational outrage versus content)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Two posts. Posted at the same time, by same poster (to control for ignores lists, liking or disliking a poster, etc.) Neither headline is inflammatory, overstated or sensational.

Today's Obama Iraq and Foreign Policy Speech : Full Text & Video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6506106

Views: 81

Email addresses for Jon Stewart, Comedy Central and Viacom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6506089&mesg_id=6506089

Views: 1063

The headline that suggests the hope of moronic content (please,please,please), like a boycott of the Daily Show, is candy. The headline that promises nothing but the text and video of Obama's most important foreign policy address to date is broccoli.

This experiment merely supports what is already obvious: People come here for controversy, fighting and marveling at the stupidity of their fellow beings. So calls to run off apostates and generally turn GDP into sunshine and lollipops would most likely result in an all but empty forum, or the expansion of heretic-hunting to include increasingly mainline content.

(It is possible that more people clicked on the second post simply because they didn't already know what was in it... it's mysterious. "Wonder what this is about?" But again, if everyone hewed to orthodoxy there would be no mysteries. Everyone would already pretty much know what was in every post before even reading it.)

Since disagreement is the life-blood of discussion forums there is no such thing as a popular AND harmonious forum.

[Youphemism]

1. To be fair, Jon Stewart has a lot of fans...

It wasn't entirely a controlled experiment. Also, there are probably some others who had already accessed the speech on their own.

Still, you're right about what people choose to look at. Others have obviously noticed it to, by the way they post sensationalized or completely antagonistic subject lines that suggest the opposite of what the post is about.

Lots of it is human nature, though. To quote Barbra Streisand, "You can't fight a tidal wave."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Yes, to many the speech was old news.

Had the disproportion been less than twelve to one I wouldn't have found it striking.

And, of course, It wasn't the only thread about the speech, but was the only post in GDP promising to contain the speech itself.

It is funny, though, that the speech post was probably the LEAST viewed thread in the whole forum during the time frame.

(81 views? A blank thread would have gotten at least 300 curiosity clicks.)

[Youphemism]

5. Maybe you should continue the experiment...

...Try a title only marginally related to politics and the campaign, like:

"Angelina Jolie Says She Regrets Having Sex With Dead Senator Strom Thurmond in McCain's Bathroom."

[ZombieHorde]

3. I didn't look at either of those.

The fist one I didn't see, I am guessing that it sank quick.

The second one seemed like something I wanted nothing to do with. (I was not in a letter writing mood.)

[snooper2]

4. Well, I'll give you one of the 4 replies you will get on this thread

:rofl:

Oh, and your posts don't count and you are up to 66 views already :rofl:




GOBAMA!

[Eyes_wide_ open]

6. Kinda tells the story doesn't it?

I saw (and believe I posted) to both. I had seen snippets of the speech but yours had the whole thing :applause:

Sadly, this OP will not be ... absorbed ... by those that most need its lessons. What amazes me is not the amount of disagreements (to be expected anywhere many gather) but the viciousness of the personal attacks between people that are supposed to be on the same team. And both 'idealogical' sides are equally guilty.

Seems to me that anybody that cares enough about the outcome of the election to be here, wanting to discuss issues, ought to be given the benefit of the doubt as far as they might actually, you know, want to "discuss" whatever they happen to be posting about. Closed mindedness, even when it is the result of knowing who someone backed in the primaries, is still closed mindedness, and a very 'conservative' trait, whatever party you belong to, and it really surprised me to find it so prevalent here.

Name calling, saying others are 'stupid' because they don't agree that you way is the ONLY way to reach a given goal, accusations of 'traitor' because you dare to question your leaders only serve to give credence to the notion that you DON'T have a valid point to make in relation to the question. And realistically, if we can't answer the questions posed of our own, how do we expect to answer the same questions coming from undecideds on the street?

Obvious flame bait (yes, I'm not blind) is fairly easy to eliminate. Quit posting to it, that defeats their whole purpose.

We don't learn anything if all we hear are things we already believe, and learning is never a bad thing IMO

[AtomicKitten]

7. "Nobody does it half as good as you."

* Carly Simon

A shit-stirrer complaining about shit-stirring. Oy.