POLL: Technical Discussions

When it comes to informal technical discussions, less-than-formal accuracy is probably a rule or reality---as with all extemporaneous speech. I personally expect about the same degree of inaccuracy in our technical chit-chat threads as I might expect at a cocktail party comprised of well-acquainted professionals: much less accuracy in those extemporaneous conversations, between cocktail sips, than one might expect from a formally written technical paper, for instance.

However, I feel there are some serious caveats with our technical discussions here. Accuracy is clearly one of them. When a conversation SOUNDS technical but is not readily grasped, then inaccuracies tend to be missed. As an example, when I am immersed in any given technical conversation, I can never be relied on to correct my own mistakes. If I knew any mistake in advance, I would not make it. Inaccuracies often go uncorrected in our technical discussions for an entire variety of reasons.

Yet Mars and other people legitimately have very high expectations for the content of our technical posts. Yet, people participating in those technical posts frequently maintain much lower "entrance criteria" for those technical submissions in the form of spontaneous conversations. That is only one consideration that prompted me to question the value of what I had termed our "overly-technical discussions" in Carbonman's funny CPAP Illuminati thread. I think the "technical lite" discussions---technical discussions that can be readily applied to our therapy---clearly have a deserving place on this message board. But I still have my doubts about the value of some of our deeper technical discussions. I don't see them as often solving problems, and I observe that they can indirectly create strife and confusion.

jnk wrote:So far, I'm only disappointed that the 'nutty' answer is so far behind the 'enjoy' answer.

The only reason I used one of my two votes on that choice was because I knew perfectly well you were laughing as you typed that option.

I'm sorry to inform you, jeff, that I believe you suffer from delusion of grandeur. I did think that was a the nuttiest poll I've ever see, on this forum, bar none, but then I noticed that on another thread, -SWS announced an even nuttier poll, albeit one taking place within his soul....

I am referring to this:

SWS wrote:Recognizable elephant as it is, I am genuinely starting to think that overly-technical discussions indirectly create far more turmoil on this message board than benefit.

On careful rereading I noticed that -SWS anounced he

will do some very serious soul searching about the intangible cost/benefit ratios...

and having read that, I concluded that my dear friend -SWS may have had his brain fried by tin hats even worse that you, jnk, since:

• He seems to assume overly technical discussions on this forum will magically cease once he no longer contributes to them (that one's a delusion of grandeur which is very hard to beat...)
• He seems to believe it's the technical discussions (whether overly technical or otherwise) at the root of the turmoil and not peoples' personalities - There will always be people on an Internet forum who will attempt to use them as a stage for showing off fictitious expertise - I doubt focusing on "technical lite" will keep them from doing that. The only way of arriving at a technical truth is by discussing it over and over, until the facts are clear. Turmoil ensues because some naked would be kings become very abusive when corrected -- and it doesnt' really matter whether the subject was "technical lite" or "technical overly"... The deciding issue is ego investment -- and we have no control of of the ego investment of others. I happen to think that there's not much you can do to avoid such turmoil. On the other hand, much harm can be done if we leave errors uncorrected.

Which is why I conclude there is no way the present poll is the nuttiest poll I've seen, and furthermore, tin hats with blue lights are a real danger.

There is so much for me to learn from those technical discussions - so much I have learned since watching the first one evolve before I registered on this forum, I really can't imagine not having them take place.

Separating chaff from wheat is a difficult task on any forum populated mostly by people who know only each other's internet pesona. I do hope, -SWS that after consulting with your soul you will conclude the gains are far far higher than the turmoil.

Not a nutty poll at all, jnk

-SWS wrote: But I still have my doubts about the value of some of our deeper technical discussions. I don't see them as often solving problems, and I observe that they can indirectly create strife and confusion.

Given the subjectivity involved w/this therapy:
each individual persons physical/mental circumstance,
each individual persons ability to adapt to and maximize their therapy,
this is a very valid observation.

Discussions that create doubt and in some cases, fear,
that ones therapy is not the best and that in turn
creates angist that something needs to be changed....
consequently their therapy is always in flux.....

For newbies, there is valuable information to guide them on
their initial Odyssey of the Mask/headgear/HH/hose journey
and later, de Lure of de Machine.

I am still on the fence as to the value of O2 readers and all that stuff.

That being said, many of the technical discussions that go
on here convince me that in many cases, WE are better informed,
educated and experienced than MOST OSA "professionals".

Flame on.

I think I hear you, -SWS. But I still can't quite wrap my brain around the idea of "overly-technical." Maybe "overly-technical" is too technical a term for me.

My only expectation is to benefit from the thoughts of others, even when those thoughts are off-the-cuff. And as for the more technical matters, the more technical the better as far as pointing me in directions for further learning.

I find the deeper technical discussions to be a much-needed reminder that present theories of treatment are built on consensus about matters that are not as simple as they often appear in sales literature and treatment protocols. That reminder takes place even when the discussion is slightly out of my grasp or causes me some confusion. To me, confusion is part of the point, since the point of much higher learning is to muddy the waters.

If someone knows something I do not, I prefer they share it even if it doesn't immediately register with me. It is my responsibility not to use those words as an excuse for any conclusion I may draw based on my flawed understanding of it. And it is my belief that any important discussion on matters of controversy (the most important matters to discuss, after all) will likely cause some strife, at least in the archaic sense of "earnest endeavor."

Good communication means continuing to try to discuss things that are difficult to discuss and that are easily misunderstood--in life, in marriage, in science, and on boards. And I personally would like to thank you for your willingness to share some of those things, even when I'm sure it isn't easy and when it must be frustrating to you to see when others miss the point of a discussion you have had.

jeff

ps-Thanks, ozij. I'll have to kick-it-up-a-notch with my nuttiness, then.

I like the techno talk, but I do appreciate it when they're "dumbed down" into plain English so I can make sense out of what's being discussed.

jnk wrote:I think I hear you,

My only ...................directions for further learning.

I find the deeper technical discussions to............... higher learning is to muddy the waters.

If someone knows something I do .................archaic sense of "earnest endeavor."

jeff

...yea, yea, yea....blah, blah, blah.........yada, yada, yada.......


Have you picked who you're gon'n off on yet?????

Why can't uber technical discussions be marked differently?
On one board I frequent the "Big Discussions" require you to cite sources and you get thoroughly stomped on if you just use personal anecdotes - unless you use them to debunk a cited source.


NOTE: scientific method - you can only provide data to support a theory and it takes only one fail to disprove it - gravity for instance is a theory not a proven fact- the first instance of an apple falling upwards on Earth disproves the theory. Same goes for electricity and magnetism which is the theories behind the functioning of the computer you are reading this on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

OT=Off Topic
UT=Uber Technical



I LIKE it!

Amen, ozij, amen.

Over the past six years, I've watched -SWS's carefully measured suggestions help more people than I can count -- in extremely technical threads. Both on another apnea message board before cpaptalk existed, and even more times in this great forum. His generous help to Bev (OutaSync) and loonlvr come instantly to mind. There are many more, whose nicknames escape me at the moment. Additionally, the probable great number of people who will never post, but lurk to read, read, read -- trying to learn as much as they can. -SWS is an excellent person to learn from, imho.

ozij wrote:I do hope, -SWS that after consulting with your soul you will conclude the gains are far far higher than the turmoil.

Amen.

Oh, I didn't use my second voting option. I didn't choose the last option Jeff offered in his poll, 'cause there's NO WAY I'm gonna give that nutty fun-lovin' rascal the satisfaction of overtaking the #1 choice!!

Why can't uber technical discussions be marked differently?
On one board I frequent the "Big Discussions" require you to cite sources and you get thoroughly stomped on if you just use personal anecdotes - unless you use them to debunk a cited source.

Well, certain people do that here. An infamous engineer,who thinks he's the next Doctor Park spouts his agreement or disagreement as if it were the 5th gospel, and demands that anyone else PROVE their opinions. Basically, virtually everything that isn't a link to expert factual expertise here is exactly that, an opinion. So, what is wrong with each of us sharing our "opinions" with each other, without having to write a missal defending their hypothesis? This isn't grad school, and a defense of thesis, it is a message board where most of the individuals are NOT sleep physicians, and give their experiences and anecdotes to share so as to have a sense of community.

Autopapdude wrote:

Why can't uber technical discussions be marked differently?
On one board I frequent the "Big Discussions" require you to cite sources and you get thoroughly stomped on if you just use personal anecdotes - unless you use them to debunk a cited source.

Well, certain people do that here. An infamous engineer,who thinks he's the next Doctor Park spouts his agreement or disagreement as if it were the 5th gospel, and demands that anyone else PROVE their opinions. Basically, virtually everything that isn't a link to expert factual expertise here is exactly that, an opinion. So, what is wrong with each of us sharing our "opinions" with each other, without having to write a missal defending their hypothesis? This isn't grad school, and a defense of thesis, it is a message board where most of the individuals are NOT sleep physicians, and give their experiences and anecdotes to share so as to have a sense of community.

Autopapdude,

I admit that the subtlety of your post may be lost on me. But, if this isn't grad school, what am I going to do with my cpaptalk.com credits?

Even things linked "to expert factual expertise" are opinion, in my opinion, though I have no source to prove that.

Isn't the primary purpose of forums mostly just to have a place for me to post my opinions so everyone else can attack them? As long as I am attacked respectfully, I welcome all attacks. All of our opinions are stupid, but some have proven that some of their opinions are less stupid than others, over time.

I love forums! They have limited value. But value nonetheless. If I wanted to go solely by one person's opinion, after all, I would do whatever my doc wanted, without question.

No fighting in the war room, gentlemen. Or, no smoking in the flame room. Or, something like that.

jeff

BlackSpinner wrote:Why can't uber technical discussions be marked differently?
On one board I frequent the "Big Discussions" require you to cite sources and you get thoroughly stomped on if you just use personal anecdotes - unless you use them to debunk a cited source.

Well, so far I have considered nearly all of our technical message-board discussions to be essentially uber technical chit-chat. So my only fear is that we'd be marking 99.9% of our technical discussions as UT, when it might be easier to just mark those rare higher-standard exceptions.

However, the more stringent requirements for those "Big Discussions" also match our new and underutilized CPAP Wiki. So is it better to distinguish our two types of technical discussions here on the message board----or should reliable technical material with higher expectations/criteria go to the CPAP Wiki?

Well, so far I have considered nearly all of our technical message-board discussions to be essentially uber technical chit-chat. So my only fear is that we'd be marking 99.9% of our technical discussions as UT, when it might be easier to just mark those rare higher-standard exceptions.

However, the more stringent requirements for those "Big Discussions" also match our new and underutilized CPAP Wiki. So is it better to distinguish our two types of technical discussions here on the message board----or should reliable technical material with higher expectations/criteria go to the CPAP Wiki?

That makes sense. As in a header" "This isn't my technical expertise (read that, my opinion), but reflects professional views in the field of Sleep Medicine?"

-SWS wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:Why can't uber technical discussions be marked differently?
On one board I frequent the "Big Discussions" require you to cite sources and you get thoroughly stomped on if you just use personal anecdotes - unless you use them to debunk a cited source.

Well, so far I have considered nearly all of our technical message-board discussions to be essentially uber technical chit-chat. So my only fear is that we'd be marking 99.9% of our technical discussions as UT, when it might be easier to just mark those rare higher-standard exceptions.

However, the more stringent requirements for those "Big Discussions" also match our new and underutilized CPAP Wiki. So is it better to distinguish our two types of technical discussions here on the message board----or should reliable technical material with higher expectations/criteria go to the CPAP Wiki?

Many of the technical topics certainly don't start out at UT topics -- a case in point is the latest one -- Clear Airway Apnea = Central Apnea? but then the discussions get rolling. At that point we have 2 choices:
Go on on the same thread
Move this to a new one.

I'm for staying in the same thread. The forum has become very busy, and any new thread will push another one down -- sometimes shifting messages from newbies to page 2 within a couple of hours. We should avoid adding more messages that move threads to a new page.

Case-in-point I reversed the meaning of uber above, and so far that potentially confusing reversal just sits there uncorrected---perhaps out of social politeness, kindness, or just confusion about my intended meaning. My point is that wrong information flows very freely on our message board side, and much of it does not get corrected. Our more complex threads probably have greater potential for misinformation and misunderstanding to flow freely.

I do like the idea of somehow designating more reliable technical information---whether we decide to relegate it to the CPAP Wiki or informally use UT in our subject lines.

ozij wrote:He seems to assume overly technical discussions on this forum will magically cease once he no longer contributes to them (that one's a delusion of grandeur which is very hard to beat...)

The would-be-naked-king technical podium certainly wouldn't go away. But there's the issue of my technical posts feeding that. However...

ozij wrote:On the other hand, much harm can be done if we leave errors uncorrected.

I agree. And that is a lot of work IMHO. Given my example above, we should expect plenty to just slide right by. But we should try to at least correct the big ones: the ones that might adversely impact the health or welfare of our readership.

ozij wrote:I do hope, -SWS that after consulting with your soul you will conclude the gains are far far higher than the turmoil.

With your help and all the others in this thread, I have. Thank you!