For reasons I’m not ready to reveal just yet, I’m going to try to increase the amoun
t of writing I’m doing on this blog. All of us who write want to increase the number of people who read our work, so I’d like to ask you some questions.
- What kind of topics would you most like to see me write about? Do you like the posts where I specifically address pseudoscience, or are the “positive science” posts more of interest, or no preference? Are there any topics you’d like to see me write about that I haven’t done so yet?
- I tend to write fairly lengthy posts (by blog standards, at least). Are these too long, or is the length OK?
- Obviously the voice is mostly my own, and I use “I”, “me”, “mine”, and other egocentric language. Is this kind of thing OK, or would you prefer a more neutral tone?
- Would you recommend my blog for others to read? I get anywhere between 3 and 80 readers on posts, and I haven’t quite figured out the magic of blogging yet.
These questions are somewhat a matter of taste for obvious reasons, but I’d like to hear from you. I’m going to try to promote my blog (along with my Twitter feed) more than I have so far, so if you like what you read, please help others to find the site. Feedback through comments or directly to me via email is most welcome.
Galileo's Pendulum 
3 responses to “In Which the Blog Writer Asks Questions”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Matthew Francis, Dr. Matthew Francis. Dr. Matthew Francis said: http://wp.me/p14KoQ-4a Another blog post? Heavens to Murgatroyd! I'm asking for comment on the blog in general, so please read and respond. […]
I have always been interested in the psychology that drives pseudoscience, so I would love to see a blog entry that looks at this topic. It seems to me that people are, in general, terrible inferential statisticians who tend to see patterns in life that don’t often exist. I started writing an essay on the idea of synchronicity and coincidence a few years ago, but I never finished it. It incorporated a lot of ideas like confirmation bias, the so-called ’23 Enigma’, the Law of Truly Large Numbers, etc.
Many people, as far as I can tell, become prey to this kind of irrationality. And they become “error-prone intuitive scientists” at best, and at worst, pseudoscientists.
BTW, I read this blog every time I see the update on Facebook, and I would definitely recommend it to others who might be interested. More people should be reading this.
Honestly, I would love to write such a post but I’m not sure I’m qualified! (I know that usually doesn’t stop me.) My colleague Cedar might be able to oblige, or help point me to the resources to learn enough to comment.
On the other hand, let me think about it. It’s a worthwhile topic to consider, so with a commission I might be able to find the motivation to have something meaningful to say.