I ended up posting it out of sincere curiosity regarding whether it would go up or down. But I suppose it did amount to spam; I accept my downvotes with no unhappiness.
I would place the probability lower than that. −11 is a long way to come back from when the comment has already faded into history. Even if my upvote just moved it to −10 for the same reason. :)
Massively underconfident. I downvoted for self-consciousness, then I reconsidered and upvoted for the irony. But then I downvoted because I felt you were attempting to get upvotes, then I revised and upvoted for being explicit in that attempt. Then, later, I downvoted for being explicit about your explicitness.
Basically, you should have expected high 90s for all of those events. As it stands, your percentages would require you to offer even-money bets for any of those events except regretting, all of which you’d lose.
Lower confidence was to account for the fact that some people would read it and decline from voting either way; therefore P>50% of upvote would not imply P<50% of downvote. In hindsight it’s a confusing scheme to parse into bets. Everyone who read (e.g.) the first prediction and didn’t vote would count in the 80% who didn’t downvote it for being self-conscious. The first five percentages were, in my mind, predictions concerning the distribution of the actions of those who read the comment, where ‘didn’t vote’ also counts toward the union. But regarding betting, there’s no way to get the data of how many actually read it.
Any sufficiently advanced karma-whoring is indistinguishable from a useful comment. I personally don’t care for karma, but I maintain that I regret the post for wasting people’s time.
I don’t believe there are any real karma-whores on Less Wrong. I’m detailing my beliefs here in an attempt to accurately signal my ability to think about things; I presume it follows that anyone who can think for more than four seconds shouldn’t actually continue to gain pleasure from getting karma for stupid comments. I attempt to signal this because I would not myself wish to learn of the existence of karma-whores on Less Wrong and assume you are the same.
Note the (tenuous) irony; I predicted such criticisms of the post as I wrote it! I hoped people would enjoy reading it; not make conclusions about karma-whoring, which would be bad because I do not gain anything by learning that I have made the readers of Less Wrong unhappy. I do further wonder how many up- or down-votes the first N predictions unaccompanied would have garnered, but I won’t tempt fate by doing trials.
Any sufficiently advanced karma-whoring is indistinguishable from a useful comment. I personally don’t care for karma, but I maintain that I regret the post for wasting people’s time.
Upvoted for indistinguishable insight. Downvoted for the overused and inaccurate “don’t care about karma” signal. Downvoted 7 other comments by you at random because you don’t care and I’m in an arbitrary mood. :)
I also downvoted Normal’s comment because the “karma-whoring” comment was glaringly inaccurate.
I care about antagonising people and wasting their time, so naturally I pay attention to karma as it’s a reliable signal ;) But of itself it’s pretty useless; given the chance, I wouldn’t choose to press a button that bestowed 1000 magical karma points on my account.
Any sufficiently advanced karma-whoring is indistinguishable from a useful comment. I personally don’t care for karma, but I maintain that I regret the post for wasting people’s time.
It was an interesting idea. I approve of this kind of meta-comment in general; I just don’t want it to become a bigger part of the comment pool and/or a way of accumulating karma. I do care about the karma system because I think it’s useful to know what intelligent people think of me (and I get a fuzzy feeling from positive reinforcement).
I don’t believe there are any real karma-whores on Less Wrong. I’m detailing my beliefs here in an attempt to accurately signal my ability to think about things; I presume it follows that anyone who can think for more than four seconds shouldn’t actually continue to gain pleasure from getting karma for stupid comments. I attempt to signal this because I would not myself wish to learn of the existence of karma-whores on Less Wrong and assume you are the same.
You assume correctly. I hope there aren’t any real karma whores either. I don’t really think of you as one, just of that sort of comment as the sort of thing a karma whore would do.
Note the (tenuous) irony; I predicted such criticisms of the post as I wrote it! I hoped people would enjoy reading it; not make conclusions about karma-whoring, which would be bad because I do not gain anything by learning that I have made the readers of Less Wrong unhappy. I do further wonder how many up- or down-votes the first N predictions unaccompanied would have garnered, but I won’t tempt fate by doing trials.
I did enjoy reading it, to a limited extent. That and the insightful, useful nature of the parent make this interaction a net gain for me. In conclusion, I upvoted the parent.
Yes, I do agree that getting karma for pleasing but unproductive comments lessens the utility of karma; should be more of a costly signal for a individual’s utility to the community, where the criterion of upvote-selection is important (i.e. ‘propagates rationality’ is presumably most desirable). Upvotes for cheap jokes dampens the signal.
This comment will be downvoted for being self-conscious: 20%.
This comment will be upvoted for the sake of irony: 35%.
This comment will be downvoted for attempting to get upvotes: 30%.
This comment will be upvoted for being explicit about that fact: 15%.
This comment will be downvoted for being explicit about being explicit about that fact: 15%.
I will regret posting this comment: 65%.
Downvoted because I don’t think I want to see more comments like it.
I ended up posting it out of sincere curiosity regarding whether it would go up or down. But I suppose it did amount to spam; I accept my downvotes with no unhappiness.
I find it somewhat troubling that my flip reply to your comment has netted me more karma than any of my other recent contributions.
I upvoted because I hope it settles at 0 points, making your whole comment look merely silly. I think the chances of that happening are ~11.293%
I would place the probability lower than that. −11 is a long way to come back from when the comment has already faded into history. Even if my upvote just moved it to −10 for the same reason. :)
Massively underconfident. I downvoted for self-consciousness, then I reconsidered and upvoted for the irony. But then I downvoted because I felt you were attempting to get upvotes, then I revised and upvoted for being explicit in that attempt. Then, later, I downvoted for being explicit about your explicitness.
Basically, you should have expected high 90s for all of those events. As it stands, your percentages would require you to offer even-money bets for any of those events except regretting, all of which you’d lose.
Lower confidence was to account for the fact that some people would read it and decline from voting either way; therefore P>50% of upvote would not imply P<50% of downvote. In hindsight it’s a confusing scheme to parse into bets. Everyone who read (e.g.) the first prediction and didn’t vote would count in the 80% who didn’t downvote it for being self-conscious. The first five percentages were, in my mind, predictions concerning the distribution of the actions of those who read the comment, where ‘didn’t vote’ also counts toward the union. But regarding betting, there’s no way to get the data of how many actually read it.
Downvoted to disincentivize this type of thing; it strikes me as karma-whoring.
Any sufficiently advanced karma-whoring is indistinguishable from a useful comment. I personally don’t care for karma, but I maintain that I regret the post for wasting people’s time.
I don’t believe there are any real karma-whores on Less Wrong. I’m detailing my beliefs here in an attempt to accurately signal my ability to think about things; I presume it follows that anyone who can think for more than four seconds shouldn’t actually continue to gain pleasure from getting karma for stupid comments. I attempt to signal this because I would not myself wish to learn of the existence of karma-whores on Less Wrong and assume you are the same.
Note the (tenuous) irony; I predicted such criticisms of the post as I wrote it! I hoped people would enjoy reading it; not make conclusions about karma-whoring, which would be bad because I do not gain anything by learning that I have made the readers of Less Wrong unhappy. I do further wonder how many up- or down-votes the first N predictions unaccompanied would have garnered, but I won’t tempt fate by doing trials.
Upvoted for indistinguishable insight. Downvoted for the overused and inaccurate “don’t care about karma” signal. Downvoted 7 other comments by you at random because you don’t care and I’m in an arbitrary mood. :)
I also downvoted Normal’s comment because the “karma-whoring” comment was glaringly inaccurate.
I care about antagonising people and wasting their time, so naturally I pay attention to karma as it’s a reliable signal ;) But of itself it’s pretty useless; given the chance, I wouldn’t choose to press a button that bestowed 1000 magical karma points on my account.
You’d pass up the chance to study ontologically fundamental mental entities?!
That is the price of such an intense desire to signal one’s apathy toward karma! :P My loss, I suppose!
P.S. Luminosity + Radiance rules!
It was an interesting idea. I approve of this kind of meta-comment in general; I just don’t want it to become a bigger part of the comment pool and/or a way of accumulating karma. I do care about the karma system because I think it’s useful to know what intelligent people think of me (and I get a fuzzy feeling from positive reinforcement).
You assume correctly. I hope there aren’t any real karma whores either. I don’t really think of you as one, just of that sort of comment as the sort of thing a karma whore would do.
I did enjoy reading it, to a limited extent. That and the insightful, useful nature of the parent make this interaction a net gain for me. In conclusion, I upvoted the parent.
Huzzah!
Yes, I do agree that getting karma for pleasing but unproductive comments lessens the utility of karma; should be more of a costly signal for a individual’s utility to the community, where the criterion of upvote-selection is important (i.e. ‘propagates rationality’ is presumably most desirable). Upvotes for cheap jokes dampens the signal.
Downvoted because this kind of self-reference humor is old-hat here.
(actually I didn’t downvote because −14 is enough, but I agree with the downvoters)