Oh, my first downvote. Interesting. Bad Leisha, you’ve violated some community norm or other. But given that I’m new here and still trying to determine whether or not this community is a good fit for me, I’m curious about the specifics. I wonder what I did wrong.
Necroposting? Disagreeing with the OP? Taking the OP too literally and engaging with the scenario? Talking about my emotional response or personal values? The fact that I do value individual liberty over the collective? Some flaw in my chain of reasoning? (possible, but if so, why not point it out directly so that I can respond to the criticism?)
Note: This post is a concerted rational effort to overcome the cached thought ‘oh no, someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote :( ’ and should be taken in that spirit.
Oh, my first downvote. Interesting. Bad Leisha, you’ve violated some community norm or other. But given that I’m new here and still trying to determine whether or not this community is a good fit for me, I’m curious about the specifics. I wonder what I did wrong.
A single downvote is not an expression of a community norm. It is an expression by a single person that there was something, and it could be pretty much anything, about your post that that one person did not like. I wouldn’t worry until a post gets to −5 or so, and −1 isn’t very predictive that it will.
Note: This post is a concerted rational effort to overcome the cached thought ‘oh no, someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote :( ’ and should be taken in that spirit.
The “someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote” part is accurate. You don’t need the “oh no” and “:(” parts. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean that you are wrong.
Personally (and I did not vote on your post either way), I don’t think you are quite engaging with the problem posed, which is that each of these hypothetical rationalists would rather win without being in the army themselves than win with being in the army, but would much prefer either of those to losing the war. Straw-man rationality, which Eliezer has spent many words opposing, including these ones, would have each rationalist decline to join up, leaving the dirty work to others. The others do the same, and they all lose the war. The surviving rationalists under occupation by barbarians then get to moan that they were too smart to win. But rationality that consistently loses is not worth the name. It is up to rationalists to find a way to organise collective actions that require a large number of participants for any chance of success, but which everyone would rather leave to everyone else.
Some possible ways look like freely surrendering, for a while, some of one’s freedom. A general principle that Freedom is Good has little to say about such situations.
A single downvote is not an expression of a community norm. It is an expression by a single person that there was something, and it could be pretty much anything, about your post that that one person did not like.
It’s not just one person though. Having −1 points also means that nobody else thought it deserves more than that, or at least it’s not worth their effort to vote it back up to 0. So if you have reason to think the comment has been read by more than a few people after it was downvoted, even −1 points does reflect the community judgement to some extent.
Generally, the only types of comments that are below −3 that I upvote are ones which I think add a perspective to the conversation which should be there but should have a different proponent. It’s rare that I find a comment at less than −3 which I would fully endorse (but I have my settings set to display all comments).
Thank you for your response! It does help to be able to discuss these things, even if it seems a little meta.
A single downvote is not an expression of a community norm.
Point taken.
The “someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote” part is accurate. You don’t need the “oh no” and “:(” parts.
Sure, I don’t need them. I included them as evidence of the type of flawed thinking I’m trying to get away from (If you’re familiar with Myers-Briggs, I’m an F-type trying to strengthen her T-function. It doesn’t come naturally).
Personally (and I did not vote on your post either way), I don’t think you are quite engaging with the problem posed...
You’re right. I noted that problem, but evaluated it as being less significant than the specifics of the extended example, which struck me as both morally suspect and, in a sense, odd: it didn’t seem to fit with the tone of most of the other posts I’ve read here. See my reply to dbc for more on that.
It is up to rationalists to find a way to organise collective actions that require a large number of participants for any chance of success, but which everyone would rather leave to everyone else.
I agree. I’d add that those actions need to be collectively decided, but I agree with the principle.
Oh, my first downvote. Interesting. Bad Leisha, you’ve violated some community norm or other. But given that I’m new here and still trying to determine whether or not this community is a good fit for me, I’m curious about the specifics. I wonder what I did wrong.
Necroposting? Disagreeing with the OP? Taking the OP too literally and engaging with the scenario? Talking about my emotional response or personal values? The fact that I do value individual liberty over the collective? Some flaw in my chain of reasoning? (possible, but if so, why not point it out directly so that I can respond to the criticism?)
Note: This post is a concerted rational effort to overcome the cached thought ‘oh no, someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote :( ’ and should be taken in that spirit.
A single downvote is not an expression of a community norm. It is an expression by a single person that there was something, and it could be pretty much anything, about your post that that one person did not like. I wouldn’t worry until a post gets to −5 or so, and −1 isn’t very predictive that it will.
The “someone at LW doesn’t like what I wrote” part is accurate. You don’t need the “oh no” and “:(” parts. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean that you are wrong.
Personally (and I did not vote on your post either way), I don’t think you are quite engaging with the problem posed, which is that each of these hypothetical rationalists would rather win without being in the army themselves than win with being in the army, but would much prefer either of those to losing the war. Straw-man rationality, which Eliezer has spent many words opposing, including these ones, would have each rationalist decline to join up, leaving the dirty work to others. The others do the same, and they all lose the war. The surviving rationalists under occupation by barbarians then get to moan that they were too smart to win. But rationality that consistently loses is not worth the name. It is up to rationalists to find a way to organise collective actions that require a large number of participants for any chance of success, but which everyone would rather leave to everyone else.
Some possible ways look like freely surrendering, for a while, some of one’s freedom. A general principle that Freedom is Good has little to say about such situations.
It’s not just one person though. Having −1 points also means that nobody else thought it deserves more than that, or at least it’s not worth their effort to vote it back up to 0. So if you have reason to think the comment has been read by more than a few people after it was downvoted, even −1 points does reflect the community judgement to some extent.
Indeed, my quality threshold to upvote comments at −1 is much lower than my quality threshold to upvote comments at 0.
What function describes your threshold as the negative values go below −1?
Generally, the only types of comments that are below −3 that I upvote are ones which I think add a perspective to the conversation which should be there but should have a different proponent. It’s rare that I find a comment at less than −3 which I would fully endorse (but I have my settings set to display all comments).
Thank you for your response! It does help to be able to discuss these things, even if it seems a little meta.
Point taken.
Sure, I don’t need them. I included them as evidence of the type of flawed thinking I’m trying to get away from (If you’re familiar with Myers-Briggs, I’m an F-type trying to strengthen her T-function. It doesn’t come naturally).
You’re right. I noted that problem, but evaluated it as being less significant than the specifics of the extended example, which struck me as both morally suspect and, in a sense, odd: it didn’t seem to fit with the tone of most of the other posts I’ve read here. See my reply to dbc for more on that.
I agree. I’d add that those actions need to be collectively decided, but I agree with the principle.