5

I posted this answer on Area 51, under the Sleep site proposal. I thought it would be worthwhile sharing this for members here on Meta.

I am supporting this site, to be an ongoing success, both in the milestone of leaving the Beta stage and beyond.

The purpose of this question is to gain support for CogSci.

  • 1
    I just want to make it clear in case I haven't: I really appreciate your efforts to help CogSci gain more support and grow our community; Thank you Skippy! – Josh Aug 15 '13 at 17:41
  • 1
    No problem at all Skippy. Mine isn't either so :-) – Josh Aug 16 '13 at 11:52
4

I think this raises a few points that there are several proposals on meta where to various degrees questions would be relevant to our site. In some cases, it seems like every question on the proposal would be relevant to our site. In other cases, it might only be a subset of the questions.

  • Sleep: It seems like every sample question would be on topic on this site.
  • Human Sexuality: The science questions would be on topic, but there are plenty of other questions that would not be on topic. I categorised each upvoted question in the proposal here.
  • Neuroinformatics: Some of the sample questions are a little different to the typical ones on this site, but all would be on topic here.
  • Neuroscience: The site proposal seems to focus on non-behavioural neuroscience. I think all questions would be on topic on cogsci, eventhough our focus has traditionally been more on the behavioural end of neuroscience.
  • Mental Fitness formerly known as "Mind". This proposal is in the "life" category. Pretty much all sample questions could be asked in a way that is acceptable to cogsci. Perhaps the main types of questions that wouldn't be on topic on cogsci are of the "self-help form" (i.e., "here's my detailed circumstances, can you help me?")

It would be nice if some of these communities felt energised to ask their questions on cogsci.

I wonder whether it would be useful to take a few of the sample questions and ask them here, and if they get a useful answer to post them back as evidence of their relevance to this site. That said, I'm not entirely sure of the etiquette about this.

  • 5
    I've already done this with the sample questions for sleep -- I think it's fine, as I did not use them verbatim, and expanded upon them in many cases. I have usually left Area51 Discuss messages directly on the proposals where I thought the questions would be appropriate for here. – Chuck Sherrington Aug 12 '13 at 19:32
  • 2
    We've had a few tiffs about Mental Fitness, because I think it's going to turn into a self-help free-for-all, even though they've changed the scope significantly from what it was in the beginning. – Chuck Sherrington Aug 12 '13 at 19:33
  • 2
    I think the new name "mental fitness" is better aligned with the that site proposal's goals than "mind". And it's less likely to cause confusion with cogsci. But I agree the scientific questions would be in scope here, and the self-help questions don't seem like a good fit for the stack exchange model, but I guess that's for them to decide. Perhaps we'll have a place to migrate self-help questions. – Jeromy Anglim Aug 13 '13 at 2:07
  • 1
    I think that despite the edits of the proposal, it was founded on the notion of being a self-help site, so it's going to end up that way anyway. I will be content to see it crap out. – Chuck Sherrington Aug 13 '13 at 3:22

You must log in to answer this question.