This, certainly. I have a tendency to look at the quote only rather than reading the actual post — I end up knowing what was pointed at rather than what Gary said about it.

Also, and goodness only knows what to do about it, the blog seems buggier than average from a software point of view. I’ve almost stopped trying to comment there, not because it’s impossible; I’ve been able to comment about 2/3 of the time I’ve tried, but it’s just annoying thinking of something to say and then having it disappear into the ether.

Note that two of the stylistic tendencies reinforce each other; Amygdala is set up as an expert blog, with lots of long quotes and tons of links and very little commentary. It’s a very high barrier to entry. I’m in no position to niggle over the details of 60 linked news articles; there is very little opinion to disagree with or challenge. And the persona is such that if I were to comment and say something incorrect or imperfectly researched, I wouldn’t receive a gracious reception, but probably a list of a) more links and a combination of b) complaining that no one’s contributing to Amygdala and c) the most uncharitable reading of whatever I said. God forbid I use the generic ‘you.’

The basic feeling: if I comment on the posts, I’m going to get yelled at. I might be wrong, but first I’d have to register.

The thing is, I think Amygdala is quite good for what it is. It’s a great place to go and read links to interesting articles, and I know whatever is there has been reasonably well researched. But it’s not the sort of place where one goes to comment.

Obsidian Wings is probably closest in style to what Amygdala could emulate. And it gets lots of comments while being well researched, in part because the bloggers are willing to be wrong. (hilzoy’s piece on whether Lieberman counts as a Democrat/democrat. Opines that he’s neither, lots of people disagree, and there ya go.)