Without attacking specific members, what do you think of other members in this forum in general?

For me, I feel that the average age of the active members is 40, and that most of them are from the United States. Some of them are quite locked up in their own thoughts, and some of them are arrogant and close-minded academics. Hey, I am not saying I'm any better, I'm probably worse than that.

The rest are fine/okay.

I have no idea what the average age is, though I do know that there is a broad range of ages of active members. I agree that probably most are from the United States. I agree that some are quite locked up in their own thoughts. Some of them are arrogant and close-minded people who have never seriously studied philosophy (either on their own or academically). Some have studied a tiny amount, and fit the stereotype of someone with a little knowledge (i.e., they are sophomoric). Some have no idea what philosophy is, and imagine it is just whatever BS they dream up. Some others have extensive knowledge of philosophy. Some have an intermediate amount of knowledge.

When considering what is and what is not possible, some people know more than others, and those who know more will sometimes appear closed-minded to people who know little or nothing. This is due to the idea of epistemic possibility. What is epistemically possible is dependent upon a particular individual's state of knowledge. It may be that a complex contradiction, for example, may not be recognized as a contradiction by someone, and so it may be epistemically possible for someone. Basically, the less one knows, the more things are epistemically possible. This explains why people who know little or nothing about how science works often imagine all sorts of silly things are "possible". But those who know more recognize that many things are not possible, and so they are not "open" to those ideas that are known to be impossible. To someone who knows absolutely nothing, everything seems possible.

I can't help to think that this thread is directed at certain members of the forum without directly insulting them. It also has the feel of some classical ethnocentrism.

I have no idea what the average age is, though I do know that there is a broad range of ages of active members. I agree that probably most are from the United States. I agree that some are quite locked up in their own thoughts. Some of them are arrogant and close-minded people who have never seriously studied philosophy (either on their own or academically). Some have studied a tiny amount, and fit the stereotype of someone with a little knowledge (i.e., they are sophomoric). Some have no idea what philosophy is, and imagine it is just whatever BS they dream up. Some others have extensive knowledge of philosophy. Some have an intermediate amount of knowledge.

When considering what is and what is not possible, some people know more than others, and those who know more will sometimes appear closed-minded to people who know little or nothing. This is due to the idea of epistemic possibility. What is epistemically possible is dependent upon a particular individual's state of knowledge. It may be that a complex contradiction, for example, may not be recognized as a contradiction by someone, and so it may be epistemically possible for someone. Basically, the less one knows, the more things are epistemically possible. This explains why people who know little or nothing about how science works often imagine all sorts of silly things are "possible". But those who know more recognize that many things are not possible, and so they are not "open" to those ideas that are known to be impossible. To someone who knows absolutely nothing, everything seems possible.

and no one is more paranoid than I am.

I did not feel that at all, and no one is more paranoid than I am. Did you think that too? Why? Of course, if as you say, you only felt that, even you might not know why, and perhaps it does not even matter. But if you also thought that, you would presumably have reasons for doing so, and since I don't see what those reason would be, it would be interesting to hear them.

I would see the average forum member not as a demographic, but more as an idealogue. In this forum the age and the country pale in comparison to the ideal one is promoting. Granted we try to be 'open minded' but I see little of that here. What I see is people who have spent time making for themselvesa schema of the universe as they have experienced it, then promoting it. I would assume the promotion is one of self esteem building. We need to know that we are right. Since there are not often venues in everyday life to express our ideals without being ridiculed or ostracized we have latched onto this place.

So giving a general demographic idea of we have young people escaping the "tyrany" of their parent'd dogmas, or we have middle aged folk who have imposed their ideal life upon themselves, or we have older folk who have accepted the diversity of life and ideals and are trying to unify them is pointless. What it comes down to is a rabble of quixotic idealists tilting at each other's windmills, and enjoying it like only a crazy donkey riding spaniard can.

I don't know about you (well some) but this question has nothing to do with either age or nationality.
I am fairly young in my flesh but feel both utterly the frugally aware child and utterly the expensively aware pensioner.
My birthday has nothing to do with my awareness.
AS for nationality, I live in the U.K and apart for my appreciation of the crown and a British birth certificate I do not think this is my home and hearth land.
From the other countries I have lived in I would prefer to live there.
I would be an Italian before I would be an Englishman, and as I have plans to leave this country even if I must come back and must call it my home, this is only relevant to the fact I rent a house in England.
I lived in Scotland once and would if I had a choice be there instead of not so jolly old England.
So the members contribution and presence I would say have little if any thing to with age or nationality.
Unless you spend time in Philosophy of Politics and hold your countries as the best example and most proffer-able I would say you as a member have little if anything to do with where you are housed.

What don't you like about England? Is it true that it's not very sunny over there?

And then to someone who knows everything, everything also seems possible.

It's a parabola.

... another is the one that really hates faith ...

For someone that knows everything (which means knows all truths) nothing but the truth is possible. That would mean that most things would seem impossible.

• Some members here are extremely or very well read, but they are few (and one is an admin that posted in this thread, another is the top poster, another is the one that really hates faith).
  
• Some are obnoxious, annoying, harassing etc.
  
• Most are waste of time talking with due to lack of knowledge about philosophy and lack of discussion skills.
  
• Some are generally friendly.
  
• Most are from the US.
  

The reason why I brought it up is because the original poster is from the UK and seemed to try to make a link between close-mindedness and arrogance on the forum to being predominately a phenomenon with members from the U.S.

Lets say I posted a thread asking what the community thought of members in general without specifically pointing them out. Then I went on to write: there are many members on the forum that are Dutch. Some of them are total jacka$$es and some others are total ninnies. But I am not saying that I am any better and I'm probably worse than that.

It is the way that the original poster posted his comments. He seems to have an agenda in the way he constructed his post.

When considering what is and what is not possible, some people know more than others, and those who know more will sometimes appear closed-minded to people who know little or nothing. This is due to the idea of epistemic possibility. What is epistemically possible is dependent upon a particular individual's state of knowledge. It may be that a complex contradiction, for example, may not be recognized as a contradiction by someone, and so it may be epistemically possible for someone. Basically, the less one knows, the more things are epistemically possible. This explains why people who know little or nothing about how science works often imagine all sorts of silly things are "possible". But those who know more recognize that many things are not possible, and so they are not "open" to those ideas that are known to be impossible. To someone who knows absolutely nothing, everything seems possible.