I disagree with that. Downvotes are often valuable information, and requiring people to explain all downvotes would introduce too high a bar for downvoting.
In all cases perhaps, but it is strange to see objections that would be super obvious top-of-the-head stuff in climate circles dismissed out of hand here.
(Also can someone who knows more about the Forum than me explain how this reply has 51 points from 13 votes? Even if strong-upvotes count as double this is extremely inflated. Are the totals extremified or something? Is it multiplicative?)
I suppose all I have to say is that I often see very reasonable critiques downvoted through the floor without explanation worryingly often.
I haven’t theorised very much about the cause, but the phenomenon correlates suspiciously well with substantive or strong criticism of prominent figures within EA.
If this perception is accurate, it does not seem like good epistemic practice.
(This one has 14 points from 3 votes? Do three strong-upvotes produce 14 overall karma? Why?)
I’m flattered to be called a prominent figure in EA, but I think that is not really true. If people want to criticise the substantive claims in the report, I am happy to have that discussion and I think people on the Forum would appreciate it
I disagree with that. Downvotes are often valuable information, and requiring people to explain all downvotes would introduce too high a bar for downvoting.
In all cases perhaps, but it is strange to see objections that would be super obvious top-of-the-head stuff in climate circles dismissed out of hand here.
(Also can someone who knows more about the Forum than me explain how this reply has 51 points from 13 votes? Even if strong-upvotes count as double this is extremely inflated. Are the totals extremified or something? Is it multiplicative?)
I wouldn’t characterise it as dismissing out of hand.
What would you call it?
I suppose all I have to say is that I often see very reasonable critiques downvoted through the floor without explanation worryingly often.
I haven’t theorised very much about the cause, but the phenomenon correlates suspiciously well with substantive or strong criticism of prominent figures within EA.
If this perception is accurate, it does not seem like good epistemic practice.
(This one has 14 points from 3 votes? Do three strong-upvotes produce 14 overall karma? Why?)
I’m flattered to be called a prominent figure in EA, but I think that is not really true. If people want to criticise the substantive claims in the report, I am happy to have that discussion and I think people on the Forum would appreciate it
You may think this, but (some) people on the Forum clearly do not.