Isn’t this voting business all rather ….. juvenile? Rationality (whatever it is) is not based on the simple addition of voting! 70 people can vote up and 69 vote down resulting in an objectively measured mediocre post. Or 100 can read the post and move on without voting and only two vote down—resulting in a negative karma. We have a list of boasts on the sidebar—Yudkowsky is 6 times more rational thanYvain and 15 times more rational than me and Hanson is lagging behind. Now we know whom we need to affiliate with or cheer on—Come on Hanson you need my vote.
This is silly and rife with cognitive bias.
I don’t think that the idea was that the higher your score the more rational you are, but I do agree that the “Top Contributors” thing seems to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Isn’t this voting business all rather ….. juvenile? Rationality (whatever it is) is not based on the simple addition of voting! 70 people can vote up and 69 vote down resulting in an objectively measured mediocre post. Or 100 can read the post and move on without voting and only two vote down—resulting in a negative karma. We have a list of boasts on the sidebar—Yudkowsky is 6 times more rational thanYvain and 15 times more rational than me and Hanson is lagging behind. Now we know whom we need to affiliate with or cheer on—Come on Hanson you need my vote. This is silly and rife with cognitive bias.
I don’t think that the idea was that the higher your score the more rational you are, but I do agree that the “Top Contributors” thing seems to be more trouble than it’s worth.