Nevertheless, it is my view that downvotes are one of the most useful ways to reduce bad behavior on the Forum, and one of the reasons the Forum is so much healthier than twitter et al. Instead of needing to spend time arguing about the worst content, you can just “downvote and move on”.
Agreed. I have very strong “someone is wrong on the internet tendencies,” and I find the karma system somewhat helpful in guiding me about which things I find worthwhile to argue about. If I see a low-quality argument, I may otherwise be tempted to argue with it, but seeing lots of downvotes tells me that few other people value it and I should probably move on.
On the other hand, seeing highly upvoted but invalid wrong arguments makes it more (rationally) tempting to engage or argue with. Less commonly, seeing downvoted-but-correct arguments makes me eager to defend them.
If I see a low-quality argument, I may otherwise be tempted to argue with it, but seeing lots of downvotes tells me that few other people value it and I should probably move on.
Certainly none of us can, or should, engage everything we don’t agree with. We all have our filtering mechanisms, and to each their own seems appropriate.
That said, I am personally quite wary of allowing the group consensus to be my guide on anything. The fact that lots of people like or dislike something has little meaning here. A quick example that seems relevant to EA...
It’s an overwhelming consensus of our society that nuclear weapons typically aren’t important enough to discuss, even in presidential campaigns when we are selecting a single human being to have sole authority over the use of these weapons. And this isn’t just “the stupid people”, it’s nearly everyone at all levels of society, including the most intelligent and highly educated among us. Even on this forum, the nuclear weapons which can destroy everything we care about without warning in just minutes is just one of a great many topics being discussed.
So, if a thread about nuclear weapons gets down voted by 100 million Americans and others beyond, why should I pay attention to that? We’re all basically insane, thus our voting lacks any real credibility.
Further, if the ideas that most people find generally acceptable could solve the problems we are often discussing, wouldn’t those problems most likely already be solved? If true, doesn’t it logically follow that we should be investing much of our time in to exploring ideas which most people would object to? Maybe we should be going around the forum looking for the threads that have the most down votes?
Ok, I get it now, you’ve finally sold me on down votes. :-)
Agreed. I have very strong “someone is wrong on the internet tendencies,” and I find the karma system somewhat helpful in guiding me about which things I find worthwhile to argue about. If I see a low-quality argument, I may otherwise be tempted to argue with it, but seeing lots of downvotes tells me that few other people value it and I should probably move on.
On the other hand, seeing highly upvoted but invalid wrong arguments makes it more (rationally) tempting to engage or argue with. Less commonly, seeing downvoted-but-correct arguments makes me eager to defend them.
Certainly none of us can, or should, engage everything we don’t agree with. We all have our filtering mechanisms, and to each their own seems appropriate.
That said, I am personally quite wary of allowing the group consensus to be my guide on anything. The fact that lots of people like or dislike something has little meaning here. A quick example that seems relevant to EA...
It’s an overwhelming consensus of our society that nuclear weapons typically aren’t important enough to discuss, even in presidential campaigns when we are selecting a single human being to have sole authority over the use of these weapons. And this isn’t just “the stupid people”, it’s nearly everyone at all levels of society, including the most intelligent and highly educated among us. Even on this forum, the nuclear weapons which can destroy everything we care about without warning in just minutes is just one of a great many topics being discussed.
So, if a thread about nuclear weapons gets down voted by 100 million Americans and others beyond, why should I pay attention to that? We’re all basically insane, thus our voting lacks any real credibility.
Further, if the ideas that most people find generally acceptable could solve the problems we are often discussing, wouldn’t those problems most likely already be solved? If true, doesn’t it logically follow that we should be investing much of our time in to exploring ideas which most people would object to? Maybe we should be going around the forum looking for the threads that have the most down votes?
Ok, I get it now, you’ve finally sold me on down votes. :-)