Would it be possible to add a forum-wide search/sorting option for comments with unusually high [disagreement*karma]?
Usually, karma is strongly correlated with agreement on some level, even with this system. So if a comment has high disagreement and high karma, the karma has been deconfounded and seems much more likely to have been caused by people having updated on it, or otherwise thought the arguments have gone underappreciated. And if a high proportion of people updated on it, then it’s more likely that I will too.
Finding comments like this is a great way for me increase my exposure to good arguments I haven’t encountered before.[1] And since I’m a strict epistemic vegan who won’t eat testimonial evidence (much), a sorting option like this would be the primary benefit of the agreement axis for me.
I think this is a great heuristic for optimising communal network-epistemics in general. The goal shouldn’t just be to spread true beliefs via making it easier to find out who to defer to, it should also be to spread pieces of technical (gears-level) evidence to the people who haven’t incorporated them yet. The former may perhaps be a faster way of increasing the average accuracy of community beliefs, insofar as the system works and people actually defer to people worth deferring to. But the latter aims to increase average understanding, and to produce more usefwl thinkers in the community. And perhaps it’s even better for increasing average accuracy of beliefs too in the long run, insofar as the more usefwl thinkers are better able to spot flaws in paradigms and/or push the frontier.
FWIW, if you ever reintroduce multi-axis voting of some sort, the primary axis I’d like to see is “novelty” (can’t be downvoted), for the same reasons as above.
I think some aspects of ‘voting’ might benefit from being public. ‘Novelty’ is one of them. (My first thought when you said ‘can’t be downvoted’ was ‘why?’. My filtering desires for this might be...complex. The simple feature being:
I want to be able to sort by novelty. (But also be able to toggle ‘remove things I’ve read from the list’. A toggle, because I might want it to be convenient to revisit (some) ‘novel’ ideas.))
Would it be possible to add a forum-wide search/sorting option for comments with unusually high [disagreement*karma]?
Usually, karma is strongly correlated with agreement on some level, even with this system. So if a comment has high disagreement and high karma, the karma has been deconfounded and seems much more likely to have been caused by people having updated on it, or otherwise thought the arguments have gone underappreciated. And if a high proportion of people updated on it, then it’s more likely that I will too.
Finding comments like this is a great way for me increase my exposure to good arguments I haven’t encountered before.[1] And since I’m a strict epistemic vegan who won’t eat testimonial evidence (much), a sorting option like this would be the primary benefit of the agreement axis for me.
I think this is a great heuristic for optimising communal network-epistemics in general. The goal shouldn’t just be to spread true beliefs via making it easier to find out who to defer to, it should also be to spread pieces of technical (gears-level) evidence to the people who haven’t incorporated them yet. The former may perhaps be a faster way of increasing the average accuracy of community beliefs, insofar as the system works and people actually defer to people worth deferring to. But the latter aims to increase average understanding, and to produce more usefwl thinkers in the community. And perhaps it’s even better for increasing average accuracy of beliefs too in the long run, insofar as the more usefwl thinkers are better able to spot flaws in paradigms and/or push the frontier.
FWIW, if you ever reintroduce multi-axis voting of some sort, the primary axis I’d like to see is “novelty” (can’t be downvoted), for the same reasons as above.
I think some aspects of ‘voting’ might benefit from being public. ‘Novelty’ is one of them. (My first thought when you said ‘can’t be downvoted’ was ‘why?’. My filtering desires for this might be...complex. The simple feature being:
I want to be able to sort by novelty. (But also be able to toggle ‘remove things I’ve read from the list’. A toggle, because I might want it to be convenient to revisit (some) ‘novel’ ideas.))
Hm, k, have added an edit.