Goodness, I for one would dislike it if people started doing that all the time (sometimes, it says, which is an apparently informative way of saying “Between 0 and 100% of the time”).
The downside of doing it often is that it makes people feel like you’re asking for an explanation without putting in any noticeable effort to understand. Writing things that are nice to read generally does take effort. I would recommend only asking if you are genuinely confused after a good sixty seconds of uninterrupted thought on how other people could have perceived your post. And, of course, lurking moar is good advice.
Fair enough Manfred, I respect your feeling of dislike on this position, but I disagree with its lack of rationality.
I did put in more than 60 seconds of effort trying to understand why it’s a −1, and couldn’t come up with something that didn’t include my own bias. So I wanted to both understand what the −1 was for and test to see if my inclination is true or not. So far my bias is telling me it’s an example of “have a go at the new guy on the block.”—I hold only very lightly to this and will enjoy being proven incorrect by having the −1 explained.
It’s commonly accepted that the most challenging time for a new group member is their beginning with the group and it’s also known that constructive feedback helps with that challenge.
Does a member of rational group want to provide rational feedback? Observationally quite a few do not.
If I never (or rarely) question the −1, or never or rarely receive any more feedback that −1, then I will struggle, or may not ever understand what the −1 is for. I consider myself to be intellectually honest in asking “what’s wrong with this?”, because during the process of writing the post, I’m already asking “what’s wrong with this?” and so perhaps someone with more knowledge gives me a −1 and I’d appreciate being informed “what’s wrong with this.”, for in being informed I can potentially implement better self editing procedures, that is I can improve my rationality.
Now if they don’t have the time to answer that question, ok, I’ll consider on my own what the −1 is for (again!) and then it’s more likely I’ll come up with an answer that has some amount of “reasoning” based upon my own biases. Now the sequences I’ve read so far imply that biases are something that people should attempt to perceive and challenge, so I believe that I am being consistent with the sites inclination towards rationality by asking the question, both to challenge and improve my own understanding and do the same for the person who has given me a −1, indeed also for those who witness the exchange also.
I’ll work on how to get quotes up on this site, till then...
Lessdazed asks “What does this mean? That you couldn’t come up with something that didn’t include the other person’s being stupid or innately evil?”
I’ve already answered what it means, see the post you reply to.
Thanks for the link “oh, my word!”
“That does not represent a systematic negative reaction to your post or even consensus disagreement”
I agree. Each −1 represents only a single persons negative reaction to a post.
Goodness, I for one would dislike it if people started doing that all the time (sometimes, it says, which is an apparently informative way of saying “Between 0 and 100% of the time”).
The downside of doing it often is that it makes people feel like you’re asking for an explanation without putting in any noticeable effort to understand. Writing things that are nice to read generally does take effort. I would recommend only asking if you are genuinely confused after a good sixty seconds of uninterrupted thought on how other people could have perceived your post. And, of course, lurking moar is good advice.
Fair enough Manfred, I respect your feeling of dislike on this position, but I disagree with its lack of rationality.
I did put in more than 60 seconds of effort trying to understand why it’s a −1, and couldn’t come up with something that didn’t include my own bias. So I wanted to both understand what the −1 was for and test to see if my inclination is true or not. So far my bias is telling me it’s an example of “have a go at the new guy on the block.”—I hold only very lightly to this and will enjoy being proven incorrect by having the −1 explained.
It’s commonly accepted that the most challenging time for a new group member is their beginning with the group and it’s also known that constructive feedback helps with that challenge.
Does a member of rational group want to provide rational feedback? Observationally quite a few do not.
If I never (or rarely) question the −1, or never or rarely receive any more feedback that −1, then I will struggle, or may not ever understand what the −1 is for. I consider myself to be intellectually honest in asking “what’s wrong with this?”, because during the process of writing the post, I’m already asking “what’s wrong with this?” and so perhaps someone with more knowledge gives me a −1 and I’d appreciate being informed “what’s wrong with this.”, for in being informed I can potentially implement better self editing procedures, that is I can improve my rationality.
Now if they don’t have the time to answer that question, ok, I’ll consider on my own what the −1 is for (again!) and then it’s more likely I’ll come up with an answer that has some amount of “reasoning” based upon my own biases. Now the sequences I’ve read so far imply that biases are something that people should attempt to perceive and challenge, so I believe that I am being consistent with the sites inclination towards rationality by asking the question, both to challenge and improve my own understanding and do the same for the person who has given me a −1, indeed also for those who witness the exchange also.
What does this mean? That you couldn’t come up with something that didn’t include the other person’s being stupid or innately evil?
Oh, my word!
That does not represent a systematic negative reaction to your post or even consensus disagreement.
I’ll work on how to get quotes up on this site, till then...
Lessdazed asks “What does this mean? That you couldn’t come up with something that didn’t include the other person’s being stupid or innately evil?” I’ve already answered what it means, see the post you reply to.
Thanks for the link “oh, my word!”
“That does not represent a systematic negative reaction to your post or even consensus disagreement” I agree. Each −1 represents only a single persons negative reaction to a post.