The Law of Stupid Posts

[felson]

One (wildly exaggerated and very simplistic, but still useful) rule of thumb I've learned from the 2+2 boards is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post.

That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on genuine intelligence.

That sucks because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Has anyone else has observed this and given it a name? If not, then I want to call this the Law of Stupid Posts, or LSP for short. Other suggestions are welcome.

I want a good name because I think this could be quite useful.

Some obvious exceptions to the law:
-- Intelligent posts could get tons of replies if they are very controversial. Imo these are less common than the controversial stupid posts though.
-- Polls, votes, etc., get lots of replies without being stupid.
-- Probably some other ones that I am too lazy to think of right now.

[kipin]

Using your logic this one should get a flame next to it.

[Brainwalter]

Zing!!

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
One (wildly exaggerated and very simplistic, but still useful) rule of thumb I've learned from the 2+2 boards is that the number of responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post.

That's because people love to correct stupidity but are hesitant to take on genuine intelligence.

That sucks because it means stupid posts get all the attention while the smart posts get lost in the noise.

Has anyone else has observed this and given it a name? If not, then I want to call this the Law of Stupid Posts, or LSP for short. Other suggestions are welcome.

I want a good name because I think this could be quite useful.

Some obvious exceptions to the law:
-- Intelligent posts could get tons of replies if they are very controversial. Imo these are less common than the controversial stupid posts though.
-- Polls, votes, etc., get lots of replies without being stupid.
-- Probably some other ones that I am too lazy to think of right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all absolutely correct. Just responding to make an intelligent post longer. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[pshreck]

This is correct, but I wouldnt exactly say its anything we didnt already know.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
This is correct, but I wouldnt exactly say its anything we didnt already know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't claim that it is original. I just want to introduce the term for future use.

[scotty34]

Well according to your law, if this post receives a lot of response, then it is a stupid post lacking intelligence, therefore disproving your law.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
Well according to your law, if this post receives a lot of response, then it is a stupid post lacking intelligence, therefore disproving your law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I suppose that a more accurate version of the law would read: "the number of dissenting responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post."

But then it's not as useful. You're supposed to be able to look at the number of replies in the thread to figure out how smart the OP is, without having to read the OP or replies.

[felson]

If a post has a line of argument which leads to a controversial conclusion, but no one objects, then the argument was probably very smart.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
"the number of dissenting responses a post gets is directly proportional to the stupidity of the post."


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be a liberal.

NT