my readership doesn't know much about cognitive science. i want them to expose
them
to some of the ideas, so that's why i will blog the book (probably by this
weekend). but, i
am also curious about the more informed opinions on this list, so i see the two
as
syngergistic forums and modes. the list is more for my own edification, the
blogging is
for my readers (who are relatively well versed in the biological sciences, but
less so in the
social-cognitive ones).

best
razib

--- In cogbloggroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah Brodwall <sjbrodwall@g...> wrote:
> I'm curious to know how others on the list feel about how the book
> discussion has been going so far. When we were originally deciding
> how we would discuss the book that we read, I didn't provide any input
> because I didn't have much of an opinion. Now that we've started
> discussing the book, however, it seems to me that conducting the
> majority of discussion on our respective blogs is a less than ideal
> way to proceed. It's true that this is a good way to make our
> comments more public, but given that 1) the mailing list is also
> public and open to anyone interested in participating and 2) this is a
> reading group and thus discussion should primarily be amongst people
> who have read the book, I'm not sure this kind of exposure is
> necessary or conducive to an in-depth discussion of the books we read.
> The fact that blogs are designed for expository writing + comments as
> opposed to democratic discussion is stymieing the flow of
> conversation, IMO (not to mention the impracticality of trying to keep
> up with discussion on multiple blogs and in their comments sections,
> metatagging via a public aggregator or no).
>
> I think the original idea of keeping the discussion on a mailing list
> is best--this is what mailing lists were designed for, after all.
> That way the discussion remains relatively linear and is collected in
> just one place. People can of course post whatever they like on their
> blogs, but I think we'd all get much more out of this reading group if
> we kept the discussion more egalitarian and in just one place.
>
> What do others think?
>
> ~Sarah