My voting heuristic is “do I want to encourage this kind of comment”. In most cases this boils down to “upvote if I agree” but sometimes I’ll upvote something I disagree with if I felt that it was valuable.
I didn’t check my history but my conclusion is the opposite of the one I’d get if I was biased so I think I’m okay.
A post can be valuable even if I agreed with it. For example, I agreed with most of the sequences as soon as I read them, but they’ve been extremely valuable to me.
Edit: I weak upvoted the OP because it was interesting enough for me to spend a few minutes thinking about it and responding.
For me the most valuable were e.g. that Seneca’s letters, with which I initially disagreed completely, but after several days or weeks of reflection, came to the conclusion that he was right and I was wrong.
My voting heuristic is “do I want to encourage this kind of comment”. In most cases this boils down to “upvote if I agree” but sometimes I’ll upvote something I disagree with if I felt that it was valuable.
I didn’t check my history but my conclusion is the opposite of the one I’d get if I was biased so I think I’m okay.
A post can be valuable even if I agreed with it. For example, I agreed with most of the sequences as soon as I read them, but they’ve been extremely valuable to me.
Edit: I weak upvoted the OP because it was interesting enough for me to spend a few minutes thinking about it and responding.
Agreed on sequences example.
For me the most valuable were e.g. that Seneca’s letters, with which I initially disagreed completely, but after several days or weeks of reflection, came to the conclusion that he was right and I was wrong.