I have a meta-question regarding my participation style at LW.
I would like to learn how to contribute more positively to the community, rather than being confused and frustrated with the reactions I get to my posts. Is this a teachable skill? And if so, where would I go to learn it? (So far, I’ve tried asking here, and on #lesswrong, but I never get anything that I can parse into a consistent or actionable model, other than “less posts like this one”.)
Just a meta idea: Treat values −1, 0, 1 as noise. Make a list of your upvoted commends, and another list of your downvoted comments. When you compare the lists, maybe you’ll see some difference.
Hmm. So far, I’m noticing more similarity between the extremes on both sides than I’m noticing with the ‘noise’ in the middle—i.e., it seems like I can roughly predict that a statement will have a large number of votes, but not in which direction.
I would like to learn how to contribute more positively to the community, rather than being confused and frustrated with the reactions I get to my posts.
What reaction confuses you? Could you point to posts that are downvoted where you don’t understand why they are downvoted. I would note that understanding that someone downvotes your post doesn’t mean that you agree that it should be voted down.
This one sat at −2 for awhile; I was confused by that.
This one also sat at −2 for quite awhile, but seems to have come up recently.
...huh. On the whole, most of the severely-downvoted posts that I remember being confused about, have since been upvoted to low-positives. I had no idea. Thank you for prompting me to take the time and attention to notice that.
I guess, then, a more direct question I have is “how do I bring my karma into the 90%‘s, instead of the low 70%’s where it is now?”—I’ve always felt that percentages are a better measure of my worth to the community than numbers. (Alternatively, if this is an incorrect assumption, then how do I update so that I see the percentages as not that important?)
There are a lot of users on LW, and any one of them could like or dislike a comment or post for any reason. If you look at the score of a comment a short time after it has been posted, it’s very likely that your score only reflects the opinion of a couple of people chosen essentially at random from the whole voting LW user base. (Also, if you comment on older threads, you will have fewer people reading them, so this effect gets amplified.) It’s only over a longer time that the scores become reliably non-random. You should basically just ignore short-term score and only look at the comments/posts that have been up for a while, say at least 1-3 days for new posts as well as for comments in relatively recent threads. (I rarely post in old threads, so can’t offer a good number there, but I would guess that it could be much longer.)
In many of your comments you seem to advocate an overly pessimistic view of humanity and portray people as unusually selfish or sadistic. Single instances of such comments might not get downvoted, but once there are enough of them to make a pattern, this might evoke a stronger reaction and even oversensitivity to such a pattern causing innocent comments to get the punishment. I haven’t downvoted such comments, but don’t want to see them either. This feels like a matter of mental hygiene. In some of your comments you’re introducing negative bias that takes unnecessary cognitive work to counter and I think you know which comments I’m talking about.
From your previous comments I infer you’re aware of this bias, or at least that other people consistently view it as such. It seems to me this bias is specific to certain topics, so if you don’t know how to counter it yourself, it might be better to avoid these topics as much as possible. Even if you think your ideas of some aspects of human psychology are accurate, you might want to reconsider your prospects of making people conform to them here in light of accumulating evidence, and pursue more fruitful and noncontroversial discussion.
This one sat at −2 for awhile; I was confused by that.
I think it also got downvoted for promoting bad behavior.
Then you come across several legitimately successful people, who are being rewarded for making people sad, or inflicting pain, or for attaching a price to other peoples’ happiness.
And then something clicks.
You speak about observing bad people winning in a direct way. That’s something for which some folks on LW vote you down. On the other hand your post isn’t insightful in a way where the people who enjoy analysing the dark arts of social interaction will upvote your post in significant amounts.
If popularity is your goal that you might want to avoid posts that advocate that bad social behavior pays off. If you still want to write those posts, go more into theoretical depth or quote statistics but even then the post probably doesn’t reach a >90% approval rate.
My guess is that the comment was downvoted because it’s wrong, or at least inaccurate. People are seldom rewarded for harming others: using Carlo M. Cipolla’s terminology, there is an important distinction between banditry and stupidity. Banditry probably causes quite a bit of harm, but stupidity may be far more common overall. It’s also more relevant to LessWrong’s goal of promoting rationality.
I think it is a good idea to ask this question here. I see that you didn’t got replied on your earlier try on this in one such comment.
First of all my experience is that such replies are seldom answered.
First: Few people explain why they are rude.
And then it is unlikely that the downvoter himself will see your edit.
I looked at you first page of comments and the answer is neither simple nor clear.
I get the impression that your comments have one or more of the following characteristics
[pollid:582]
Maybe some people here might vote the main problem you should work on.
As a consolation: You may calculate the vote total you reaped by k/(2p-1) where k is your karma and p your positive fraction. Take some consolation from it that you caused controversy. That is still better then silence.
You are at 75% and I am at 85% that is not that much differnt and for me I see it as a sign that I post controversial topics and opinions that differe sufficiently from the mean that some think them wrong.
I have a meta-question regarding my participation style at LW.
I would like to learn how to contribute more positively to the community, rather than being confused and frustrated with the reactions I get to my posts. Is this a teachable skill? And if so, where would I go to learn it? (So far, I’ve tried asking here, and on #lesswrong, but I never get anything that I can parse into a consistent or actionable model, other than “less posts like this one”.)
Just a meta idea: Treat values −1, 0, 1 as noise. Make a list of your upvoted commends, and another list of your downvoted comments. When you compare the lists, maybe you’ll see some difference.
Hmm. So far, I’m noticing more similarity between the extremes on both sides than I’m noticing with the ‘noise’ in the middle—i.e., it seems like I can roughly predict that a statement will have a large number of votes, but not in which direction.
What reaction confuses you? Could you point to posts that are downvoted where you don’t understand why they are downvoted. I would note that understanding that someone downvotes your post doesn’t mean that you agree that it should be voted down.
This one (which you explained well)
This one sat at −2 for awhile; I was confused by that.
This one also sat at −2 for quite awhile, but seems to have come up recently.
...huh. On the whole, most of the severely-downvoted posts that I remember being confused about, have since been upvoted to low-positives. I had no idea. Thank you for prompting me to take the time and attention to notice that.
I guess, then, a more direct question I have is “how do I bring my karma into the 90%‘s, instead of the low 70%’s where it is now?”—I’ve always felt that percentages are a better measure of my worth to the community than numbers. (Alternatively, if this is an incorrect assumption, then how do I update so that I see the percentages as not that important?)
There are a lot of users on LW, and any one of them could like or dislike a comment or post for any reason. If you look at the score of a comment a short time after it has been posted, it’s very likely that your score only reflects the opinion of a couple of people chosen essentially at random from the whole voting LW user base. (Also, if you comment on older threads, you will have fewer people reading them, so this effect gets amplified.) It’s only over a longer time that the scores become reliably non-random. You should basically just ignore short-term score and only look at the comments/posts that have been up for a while, say at least 1-3 days for new posts as well as for comments in relatively recent threads. (I rarely post in old threads, so can’t offer a good number there, but I would guess that it could be much longer.)
I would add to this that the sign of net scores within a couple of points of zero doesn’t provide very much information, regardless of age.
In many of your comments you seem to advocate an overly pessimistic view of humanity and portray people as unusually selfish or sadistic. Single instances of such comments might not get downvoted, but once there are enough of them to make a pattern, this might evoke a stronger reaction and even oversensitivity to such a pattern causing innocent comments to get the punishment. I haven’t downvoted such comments, but don’t want to see them either. This feels like a matter of mental hygiene. In some of your comments you’re introducing negative bias that takes unnecessary cognitive work to counter and I think you know which comments I’m talking about.
From your previous comments I infer you’re aware of this bias, or at least that other people consistently view it as such. It seems to me this bias is specific to certain topics, so if you don’t know how to counter it yourself, it might be better to avoid these topics as much as possible. Even if you think your ideas of some aspects of human psychology are accurate, you might want to reconsider your prospects of making people conform to them here in light of accumulating evidence, and pursue more fruitful and noncontroversial discussion.
I think it also got downvoted for promoting bad behavior.
You speak about observing bad people winning in a direct way. That’s something for which some folks on LW vote you down. On the other hand your post isn’t insightful in a way where the people who enjoy analysing the dark arts of social interaction will upvote your post in significant amounts.
If popularity is your goal that you might want to avoid posts that advocate that bad social behavior pays off. If you still want to write those posts, go more into theoretical depth or quote statistics but even then the post probably doesn’t reach a >90% approval rate.
My guess is that the comment was downvoted because it’s wrong, or at least inaccurate. People are seldom rewarded for harming others: using Carlo M. Cipolla’s terminology, there is an important distinction between banditry and stupidity. Banditry probably causes quite a bit of harm, but stupidity may be far more common overall. It’s also more relevant to LessWrong’s goal of promoting rationality.
Dude, this is not worth stressing about. Write what you want and let people react how they will. Many of Eliezer’s posts are heavily downvoted.
I’ve noticed that. I sometimes wonder if said posts are him deliberately going out of his way to Not Be Bloody Gandalf.
I think it is a good idea to ask this question here. I see that you didn’t got replied on your earlier try on this in one such comment.
First of all my experience is that such replies are seldom answered. First: Few people explain why they are rude. And then it is unlikely that the downvoter himself will see your edit.
I looked at you first page of comments and the answer is neither simple nor clear.
I get the impression that your comments have one or more of the following characteristics
[pollid:582]
Maybe some people here might vote the main problem you should work on.
As a consolation: You may calculate the vote total you reaped by k/(2p-1) where k is your karma and p your positive fraction. Take some consolation from it that you caused controversy. That is still better then silence.
You are at 75% and I am at 85% that is not that much differnt and for me I see it as a sign that I post controversial topics and opinions that differe sufficiently from the mean that some think them wrong.