I'm proud of this answer:

Is it normal for men in long term relationships to want to have sexual relationships with other women?

which has found 5 downvotes. I don't really know why. The reason these votes are wrong is:

-its was well cited with direct references from psychiatric manuals giving the two most common diagnosis to which i'm familiar with. I basily only sum up the sdnos and what baily has taught me thus far.

-The answer isn't ethnocentric as I include the possibility that this dsm listing wouldn't apply to certain societies and cultures. Not all dsms diagnosis have the exception to the rule.

-Burki's and Massod's paper outline what I said. Burki is a practicing psychiatrist at a university so I doubt that you could call into question their expertise.

-The consequences of SSRI's being unable to sense pleasure in the gential or orgasm (commonly called whiskey dick by LMFAO) are just widely published but for some reason not well repeated. Decreasing dosage is well published and lessening the sexual side effects with viagra is also widely published. If you need specific citations for such general knowledge thats fine but i mean i think everyone knows bob dole takes viagra.

I didn't have much to say about this question

Is there some hierarchy of the human senses?

-My response is not long but I don't see any point in belaboring the fact that they were ignorant of what we understand and we are ignorant of what we don't understand. I could have simply marked the question as a duplicate but I thought that the focus of this question on sensory integration could stand alone as it asked about packet mitigation and the other paper focused on the eye itself.

-Nerves work by passing neurochemicals (represented by water) and electrical impulses (which are passed on salts) along what's basically a tube. So rather than conceptualizing something digital I was trying to point to a more accurate but still very basic organic and fluid nature.

-Nick said that one of the reason's he downvoted me is because of a rule he and his friends are unsuccessfully attempting to make on meta against citations. I mean I think the people who visit this cite are intelligent and able to read a paper's abstract and draw their own conclusion or learn something from a relevant wikipedia article.

I'm pretty proud of this answer as well

How does cognitive science explain distant intentionality and brain function in recipients?

It has five negative votes though.

-The answer is factual.

-Stories help people learn and in this case it offers anecdotal evidence to support the fact that not all science is rational in the way in which nick purports.

-I found the methods of the paper as indefensiable but i think i was biased against it. Though the conclusion they draw from it about something happening in the brain while something external to the brain outside the abilities of perception seems consistent with intuition. "It was concluded that instructions to a healer to make an intentional connection with a sensory isolated person can be correlated to changes in brain function of that individual." I should have no knowledge of your happenings but somehow i have irrational knowings is intuition which i used to validate his feelings and explain possible alternative less valid origins.

Is there evidence to suggest that music can trigger release of a particular kind of neurotransmitter?

This question has 4 negative votes

-the citations explain the concepts of music being ethnocentric. there are no other non-ethnocentric theories of music.

-culture is fluid, culture shock and culture transition are two examples

-the concept of a subconscious connection to between music and the brain is proportionally relational to the connection between the brain and the face and muscles. It shows that on a very basic level there is large amounts of cultural diversity.

continuing on my quest to rid cogsi se of the music questions i answered the other two uniquely

Brainwave audio recordings and beta waves: how do they affect positivity?

-association is known to govern many aspects of our lives without question.

-The paper on meditation was to point that yes external stimuli can cause beta wave activity then i tried to correct the assumption that beta waves make you positive.

Is there psychoactive music?

-finally i attack the viability of the concept that target sound waves result in fixes to the brain shifting it out of a state of hyperactivity into normality. I left the ending open enough to allow for the fact that these sounds might have some utility to other states of mind.

Is paraphilia a disorder?

This answer is a regurgitation of what dr. bailey has taught me. and a synthesis of wikipedia expert opinions. there are no factual inaccuracies.

-what tried to use my comments to say paraphilia was moral, clinical diagnosis were not of great value and normality as defined by Alice Dreger was wrong for some reason

What is a neurometric function?

-this answer is a simple regurgitation of facts from a book and another public document which wasn't peer reviewed but its based in observed science rather than corollary

what are short term memories and long term memories

-basic explanation of short term long term memory natural forgetting and how it works against us higher levels of long term memory found through Skilled Memory

-explanation of what life is like on adhd and dementia

Do different methods of testing memory for character sequences result in different brain activation?

-basic question about memory span basic answer about memory span...wish i would have remembered 80 things on the WAI

Is being naked good for you?

-i cannot promise that research will make your topic look good. in this case it didnt and i think the question shouldn't have been asked because the answer is so obvious.

-so for good measure i extracted from wiki the general descent of societies.

How does cognitive science explain the origins of intuition and intelligence, that accurately describes the laws of nature?

On this question I attempted to rationalize my understanding of the question to nick but since we disagreed on fundamentally what was being asked he dismissed my answer and said i wasnt taking his criticism when we completely disagreed on the nature of the question. he keeps bringing up my abeyance of him in this instance as if it was some great tragedy. that is not exactly a factual statement but i'm getting tired.

so thats my justification from the facts of the questions of why they are accurate and i do not deserve bullying. ie -60.

share
2  
I read the title and the first 3 paragraphs and stopped reading since I fail to see how they "point to the reason why the votes are wrong". If you are serious about this, cut out the rant and just list the facts. I'll reread this post (hopefully a cut down version) tomorrow. –  Steven Jeuris Feb 10 at 0:47
    
You may add this one: cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/5621/370 I don't see the reason for so many downvotes here... –  draks ... Feb 11 at 22:47

1 Answer 1

Stop taking votes and criticisms personally. No one cares about you as a person; either your answers offer useful information in the context of a specific question, or... they don't. If your answers are poorly-received, make them better.

If you want constructive feedback, then be willing to learn and improve in response to it. Calling folks who find your writing unhelpful "bullies" does not indicate a willingness to learn.

Funny that you would mention the potential for "low quality" suspension. As the blog post documenting this particular feature notes, "No effort to learn and improve over time" is one of the primary reasons it exists. If you're looking to avoid that fate, demonstrate the effort. This isn't some debate club; either you're here to learn or you're here to share what you know - if you're not doing either one, you're gonna be a whole lot happier somewhere else on this big ol' Internet, and you can bet that no one here wants to deprive you of the happiness you're due.

share
1  
I completely second This isn't some debate club; either you're here to learn or you're here to share what you know –  Josh Gitlin Feb 10 at 3:48
    
Yeah I hope you don't ban the people who messed up on their voting. I am willing to correct anything offensive or any mistakes but I only am able to make corrections when people are explicit about exactly what they dislike and how exactly they would like to see it rectified. I may not agree in the end though and definitely will not agree as long as I do not understand. In my religion it is the devil who said "bow to me son". –  caseyr547 Feb 10 at 5:44
    
Yeah I can tell they are going to ambush me with suspensions later regardless of what i do but at least I've put it off for a bit i'll be able to point out the total void of comments when that time comes and can play till then. –  caseyr547 Feb 10 at 5:45
1  
Systemic corrections are also perfectly feasible by revising one's fundamental approach following a single useful comment, a meta-question (e.g.), or extensive experience with having one's work deleted. If you're sincerely worried about getting banned (and not just "playing" with the limits), I strongly recommend working on your style with what feedback you already have. At this stage, a second suspension would be no ambush. –  Nick Stauner Feb 10 at 17:47
    
I don't know but for some reason everytime I read "No one cares about you as a person" I get a feeling that it's a bit harsh. There’s a real human being on the other end of that network connection. –  Bleeding Fingers Mar 1 at 20:30
1  
Context is everything, @Bleeding. Your friends, family, perhaps even co-workers and peers here on CogSci certainly do care about you as a person - but when it comes to folks reading your answers, this is irrelevant. As positive as personal interactions can be, if you interpret a critique of your work as a judgement of you as a person then you're going to be very unhappy - and less likely to learn from it. –  Shog9 Mar 1 at 20:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .