However: I was not appealing to Eliezer’s authority. I was just making a parallel with a similar (but more extreme) phenomenon.
Regarding well-kept gardens. Let me put things in perspective. If you see a comment along the lines of “jesus is our lord” or “rationality is wrong because the world is irrational” or “a machine cannot be intelligent because it has no soul”, by all means downvote. However, if you see two people debating e.g. whether there will be an AI foom or whether consequentialism is better than deontology or whether AGI will come before WBE, don’t downvote someone just because you disagree. Downvote when the argument is so moronic that you’re confident you don’t want this person in our community.
Downvote when the argument is so moronic that you’re confident you don’t want this person in our community.
People change. People change even faster when you give them feedback. I downvote things I don’t want to see from people I like and respect the same way I would frown at a friend if they did something I didn’t want them to do.
So instead of ‘I’m confident I don’t want you in our community,’ I view a downvote more as ‘shape up or ship out.’
People change. People change even faster when you give them feedback.
It depends what you mean by “feedback”. If “feedback” is a polite, respectful reply explaining the mistake then, yes, it is something the other party can learn from. If “feedback” is a downvote chances are it is only going to hurt the other party and possibly make her even more entrenched in her position out of anger. When you argue respectfully, the other party can admit her mistake with small emotional cost. If you call her an idiot, admitting the mistake will become much more difficult for her (since it will become emotionally equivalent to admitting being an idiot).
I downvote things I don’t want to see from people I like and respect the same way I would frown at a friend if they did something I didn’t want them to do.
First, you can allow yourself more with friends because they are friends. Second, a downvote is a sort-of public humiliation, it is much worse than a frown. Imagine that a person you would like and respect makes one of her first comments on the forum and gets downvoted. She might become so upset she won’t return here again.
There are several points here that seem entangled, but I’ll try listing them separately.
First, it is a desirable quality to be able to work out what one did wrong from minimal evidence, or repeated experimentation.
Second, it seems to me that rationality is strengthened by the ability to joyfully accept contradictions and corrections. A view that sees a downvote as a sort-of public humiliation is probably too sensitive.
Third, politeness is costly, in several ways. Most relevant to the others is the time cost of writing a reply. It often takes much longer to instill clarity than it takes to display confusion.
Fourth, as the benefits mostly accrue to the corrected, and the costs mostly accrue to the corrector, it is not clear why we should expect such correction to be the norm instead of virtuous on the part of the corrector.
She might become so upset she won’t return here again.
LWers differ in how hard they want LW to be on its new users. I tend to be softer than, say, Lumifer, but I am not certain that this is a bug instead of a feature. There are people we don’t want to discuss things here on LW, and that sort of reaction may be a decent filter.
THE WHOLE POINT OF DOWNVOTES IS TO HAVE LESS BAD STUFF AND MORE GOOD STUFF. This applies not just to making people leave but making people who stay post tbings of higher quality.
If you don’t downvote “otherwise-okay” people when they say dumb shit, how are they supposed to learn. Downvote the comment, not the person .
I think the point is that you shouldn’t conclude “that you’re confident you don’t want this person in our community” just because “the argument is so moronic”.
(Because there’s too much noise with individual arguments to deduce a person’s general competence.)
In other words, yes, downvote the comment—not the person.
This is exactly why you shouldn’t downvote such comments: they hurt good people and discourage them from participating in the community. Also, consider the possibility your own judgement is affected by tiredness or mind-murder.
Also, consider the possibility your own judgement is affected by tiredness or mind-murder.
I guess you are talking of conditions in which someone makes a downvoting decision. But then underconfidence is also possible, and also a pathology, making one unable to act on a correct judgement. This point might be a reason that The Sin of Underconfidence is a prerequisite for Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism.
I agree that both overconfidence and underconfidence is possible, but the potential damage from downvoting is larger than the potential damage from not downvoting. Therefore, let’s err on the side of not downvoting.
The same person who said that also said this, so I guess he meant something narrower by “bullet” than you think.
Upvoted for making an interesting point.
However: I was not appealing to Eliezer’s authority. I was just making a parallel with a similar (but more extreme) phenomenon.
Regarding well-kept gardens. Let me put things in perspective. If you see a comment along the lines of “jesus is our lord” or “rationality is wrong because the world is irrational” or “a machine cannot be intelligent because it has no soul”, by all means downvote. However, if you see two people debating e.g. whether there will be an AI foom or whether consequentialism is better than deontology or whether AGI will come before WBE, don’t downvote someone just because you disagree. Downvote when the argument is so moronic that you’re confident you don’t want this person in our community.
People change. People change even faster when you give them feedback. I downvote things I don’t want to see from people I like and respect the same way I would frown at a friend if they did something I didn’t want them to do.
So instead of ‘I’m confident I don’t want you in our community,’ I view a downvote more as ‘shape up or ship out.’
It depends what you mean by “feedback”. If “feedback” is a polite, respectful reply explaining the mistake then, yes, it is something the other party can learn from. If “feedback” is a downvote chances are it is only going to hurt the other party and possibly make her even more entrenched in her position out of anger. When you argue respectfully, the other party can admit her mistake with small emotional cost. If you call her an idiot, admitting the mistake will become much more difficult for her (since it will become emotionally equivalent to admitting being an idiot).
First, you can allow yourself more with friends because they are friends. Second, a downvote is a sort-of public humiliation, it is much worse than a frown. Imagine that a person you would like and respect makes one of her first comments on the forum and gets downvoted. She might become so upset she won’t return here again.
There are several points here that seem entangled, but I’ll try listing them separately.
First, it is a desirable quality to be able to work out what one did wrong from minimal evidence, or repeated experimentation.
Second, it seems to me that rationality is strengthened by the ability to joyfully accept contradictions and corrections. A view that sees a downvote as a sort-of public humiliation is probably too sensitive.
Third, politeness is costly, in several ways. Most relevant to the others is the time cost of writing a reply. It often takes much longer to instill clarity than it takes to display confusion.
Fourth, as the benefits mostly accrue to the corrected, and the costs mostly accrue to the corrector, it is not clear why we should expect such correction to be the norm instead of virtuous on the part of the corrector.
LWers differ in how hard they want LW to be on its new users. I tend to be softer than, say, Lumifer, but I am not certain that this is a bug instead of a feature. There are people we don’t want to discuss things here on LW, and that sort of reaction may be a decent filter.
I don’t want to set up a hazing ritual to weed out the misfits from among the newbies.
What I want to avoid is LW evolving towards being victim-centric where the main concern is the possibility of giving offence.
Oh, dear. HTFU already. People who think of downvotes as hurtful and public humiliation really shouldn’t venture into the wilds of ’net forums.
Agreed, but...
Nope. Sometimes otherwise-okay people make moronic arguments because they’re mind-killed, they’re tired, etc.
THE WHOLE POINT OF DOWNVOTES IS TO HAVE LESS BAD STUFF AND MORE GOOD STUFF. This applies not just to making people leave but making people who stay post tbings of higher quality.
If you don’t downvote “otherwise-okay” people when they say dumb shit, how are they supposed to learn. Downvote the comment, not the person .
I think the point is that you shouldn’t conclude “that you’re confident you don’t want this person in our community” just because “the argument is so moronic”.
(Because there’s too much noise with individual arguments to deduce a person’s general competence.)
In other words, yes, downvote the comment—not the person.
Er… That was my point.
This is exactly why you shouldn’t downvote such comments: they hurt good people and discourage them from participating in the community. Also, consider the possibility your own judgement is affected by tiredness or mind-murder.
I guess you are talking of conditions in which someone makes a downvoting decision. But then underconfidence is also possible, and also a pathology, making one unable to act on a correct judgement. This point might be a reason that The Sin of Underconfidence is a prerequisite for Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism.
I agree that both overconfidence and underconfidence is possible, but the potential damage from downvoting is larger than the potential damage from not downvoting. Therefore, let’s err on the side of not downvoting.
This is what I disagree with.