Blogging about blogging (part 2)

Earlier in the week I wrote this post about my thoughts on the current research to create new heavy elements. I wrote it rather quickly and I certainly do not think it is the best post I have here. I did submit it to the Carnival of Education, but only because I didn't have any better posts for the week (in fact, I submitted it with the note 'this isn't my best writing, but I hope it will do').

At the moment that post has the longest and most well thought out comments I have received since I started here (which still is not very many comments, since there are not a lot of people that actually read this stuff). Plenty of posts that I think are much more thought out and interesting never received any comments. So, why are people spending more time on this post than the others? It is because they disagree with what I said. Frankly, they have every right to be. Even though I did defend my original post, I certainly understand and sympathize with the arguments against what I had to say. Also, I understand why it is easier to post a comment when you disagree with something then when you agree. How long can you stretch out a comment that basically says "good point"?

All of this brings me back to the idea that most people who write blogs want people to read and respond. It is nice to feel like we are not just writing out into the nothingness. So, how does one go about this? Based on my recent experiences here, it would seem that it would be best to write something that I know people would disagree with, maybe even something that I would disagree with. People are probably going to write more if they are upset by a post than if they are not.

Are negative emotional responses easier to create than positive ones? What a depressing question.

(I should add that I am in no way upset at those who posted disagreeing with me. In fact, I approve of and appreciate their comments.)