Seems to have just happened recently. Though similar things have happened before, I’m sure.
To try to see why you were at 0 points, I looked through the first two pages of your comments. Sorry if this advice is unsolicited, but I think there are some things you could fix.
Downvoted thing one: “Aristotle invented the idea of induction. It is a major false idea in philosophy, one that Less Wrong subscribes to. If you disagree, please show me a criticism of induction in the sequences.”
Reasons for getting downvoted: Not being charitable (i.e. doing your homework even when the other person seems wrong) leading to a fairly false equivalence between different things called “induction.” Demand that someone else show you a specific piece of evidence that you could find as easily as they.
2: “Good criticisms here, yet downvoted to −3. Do LWer’s really want to be less wrong?”
Reasons for getting downvoted: Fairly obvious, this didn’t work, try to do something more effective next time.
Things you could do better in this comment: Stick close to a few key points rather than trying to argue against everything—if you’d just posted the response to the first quote you would have communicated much better despite saying less. In fact arguing against everything is generally a bad sign, since (charity here) you should start out working from the assumption that the other person is partially right. You come across as too attached to one “big idea” and not sensitive enough to context because you bring Popper into your replies to points (e.g. his second one) that had nothing to do with Popper. If you’re feeling confrontational, try to not let it show through in the post—win by being better than the other person at this sort of argumentation, and don’t start any of your replies with “Lol.”
You might also focus on making witty, insightful, or helpful posts, but it’s harder for me to say how to make things go right.
I actually don’t care about kharma—I’m not posting to get good kharma. Neither is curi. Disagreements should be resolved by discussion and by criticism, not by voting. I was just wondering how many people who disagree with Bayesianism end up with 0 kharma on LW and whether that isn’t a bias? BTW, how do you know the reason something got downvoted?
With regard to your comments:
I have not found something on LW arguing that induction is impossible, the Popperian
position. I have read a bunch of stuff here (done some homework) and it seems to me to be in the inductivist tradition of Aristotelian philosophy. I know other people who say the same thing and LW’ers that I have talked to seem incredulous that induction is impossible. So if you claim not to be in this mainstream tradition, I don’t see how that can be and asking for material I cannot find is reasonable.
That wasn’t an attempt to get upvotes. It was a comment to curi, who I know.
If I just commented on the first quote, people would have accused me of disputing the definition (which they did anyway—oh well). The “rules followed by scientists” refers to “traditional philosophy”, by which Eliezer/Oscar mean Popper. Some commenters think Eliezer is only criticizing pop-culture. That is not so: he is criticizing Popper, and there are other posts where he makes this explicit. So Popper has everything to do with this.
You said not to start any replies with “lol”. Popperians will try doing different things in conversation to see how the other person reacts. Are they concerned with style over substance? Do they place too much emphasis on emotional reactions? Are they conformists? I wasn’t doing that in this instance, but by enforcing rigid standards of communication you lose knowledge. curi talks more about this in his threads.
I actually don’t care about kharma—I’m not posting to get good kharma. Neither is curi. Disagreements should be resolved by discussion and by criticism, not by voting.
Karma is not a method of resolving disagreements here, it’s a feedback mechanism. If your comments are being heavily downvoted, it lets you know that people are finding something objectionable about them. Ideally we would like to be able to resolve disagreements here by discussion or experiment, but not all discussion is fruitful, and when a debate persists without a useful exchange of information or changing of opinions, then many people are going to want to see less of it.
I actually don’t care about kharma—I’m not posting to get good kharma. Neither is curi. Disagreements should be resolved by discussion and by criticism, not by voting. I was just wondering how many people who disagree with Bayesianism end up with 0 kharma on LW and whether that isn’t a bias? BTW, how do you know the reason something got downvoted?
This reads to me as “I don’t care about karma, just about knowledge that can be derived from karma.” These two positions seem to be, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable.
Also, for #1, AFAIK bayesians do not seek knowledge in the platonic sense.
You said not to start any replies with “lol”. Popperians will try doing different things in conversation to see how the other person reacts. Are they concerned with style over substance? Do they place too much emphasis on emotional reactions? Are they conformists?
If you are interested in communicating ideas playing experiments with your audience is probably not helpful for your goals. Moreover, just because someone is “concerned with style over substance” or is a “conformist” does not mean they have nothing useful to offer.
Moreover, in most internet conversations, the vast majority of readers are people who will never comment. If you have any interest in getting them to listen, coming across as rude, or unnecessarily obnoxious will not endear you to them.
If you are interested in communicating ideas playing experiments with your audience is probably not helpful for your goals.
It can be. Conventional social rules often mask disagreements and are designed to do that. If you stick to the social rules, the truth can take longer to come out.
Moreover, just because someone is “concerned with style over substance” or is a “conformist” does not mean they have nothing useful to offer.
I agree, but I didn’t say that.
Moreover, in most internet conversations, the vast majority of readers are people who will never comment. If you have any interest in getting them to listen, coming across as rude, or unnecessarily obnoxious will not endear you to them
I think stating the truth about things is enough not to endear yourself to a lot of people, so trying to endear yourself to them isn’t going to help.
I have not found something on LW arguing that induction is impossible, the Popperian position. I have read a bunch of stuff here (done some homework) and it seems to me to be in the inductivist tradition of Aristotelian philosophy. I know other people who say the same thing and LW’ers that I have talked to seem incredulous that induction is impossible. So if you claim not to be in this mainstream tradition, I don’t see how that can be and asking for material I cannot find is reasonable.
I’m pretty sure it’s a mistake to lump together everyone who says induction is possible as “the mainstream tradition”.
By that same logic, I could say “Popper is in the non-quantitative tradition, which is mainstream (in contrast to Bayesian epistemology)”. Reflecting one aspect of the mainstream, even a particularly important one, is still not sufficient for actually being mainstream.
Seems to have just happened recently. Though similar things have happened before, I’m sure.
To try to see why you were at 0 points, I looked through the first two pages of your comments. Sorry if this advice is unsolicited, but I think there are some things you could fix.
Downvoted thing one: “Aristotle invented the idea of induction. It is a major false idea in philosophy, one that Less Wrong subscribes to. If you disagree, please show me a criticism of induction in the sequences.”
Reasons for getting downvoted: Not being charitable (i.e. doing your homework even when the other person seems wrong) leading to a fairly false equivalence between different things called “induction.” Demand that someone else show you a specific piece of evidence that you could find as easily as they.
2: “Good criticisms here, yet downvoted to −3. Do LWer’s really want to be less wrong?”
Reasons for getting downvoted: Fairly obvious, this didn’t work, try to do something more effective next time.
3: This long comment.
Things you could do better in this comment: Stick close to a few key points rather than trying to argue against everything—if you’d just posted the response to the first quote you would have communicated much better despite saying less. In fact arguing against everything is generally a bad sign, since (charity here) you should start out working from the assumption that the other person is partially right. You come across as too attached to one “big idea” and not sensitive enough to context because you bring Popper into your replies to points (e.g. his second one) that had nothing to do with Popper. If you’re feeling confrontational, try to not let it show through in the post—win by being better than the other person at this sort of argumentation, and don’t start any of your replies with “Lol.”
You might also focus on making witty, insightful, or helpful posts, but it’s harder for me to say how to make things go right.
I actually don’t care about kharma—I’m not posting to get good kharma. Neither is curi. Disagreements should be resolved by discussion and by criticism, not by voting. I was just wondering how many people who disagree with Bayesianism end up with 0 kharma on LW and whether that isn’t a bias? BTW, how do you know the reason something got downvoted?
With regard to your comments:
I have not found something on LW arguing that induction is impossible, the Popperian position. I have read a bunch of stuff here (done some homework) and it seems to me to be in the inductivist tradition of Aristotelian philosophy. I know other people who say the same thing and LW’ers that I have talked to seem incredulous that induction is impossible. So if you claim not to be in this mainstream tradition, I don’t see how that can be and asking for material I cannot find is reasonable.
That wasn’t an attempt to get upvotes. It was a comment to curi, who I know.
If I just commented on the first quote, people would have accused me of disputing the definition (which they did anyway—oh well). The “rules followed by scientists” refers to “traditional philosophy”, by which Eliezer/Oscar mean Popper. Some commenters think Eliezer is only criticizing pop-culture. That is not so: he is criticizing Popper, and there are other posts where he makes this explicit. So Popper has everything to do with this.
You said not to start any replies with “lol”. Popperians will try doing different things in conversation to see how the other person reacts. Are they concerned with style over substance? Do they place too much emphasis on emotional reactions? Are they conformists? I wasn’t doing that in this instance, but by enforcing rigid standards of communication you lose knowledge. curi talks more about this in his threads.
Karma is not a method of resolving disagreements here, it’s a feedback mechanism. If your comments are being heavily downvoted, it lets you know that people are finding something objectionable about them. Ideally we would like to be able to resolve disagreements here by discussion or experiment, but not all discussion is fruitful, and when a debate persists without a useful exchange of information or changing of opinions, then many people are going to want to see less of it.
This reads to me as “I don’t care about karma, just about knowledge that can be derived from karma.” These two positions seem to be, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable.
Also, for #1, AFAIK bayesians do not seek knowledge in the platonic sense.
If you are interested in communicating ideas playing experiments with your audience is probably not helpful for your goals. Moreover, just because someone is “concerned with style over substance” or is a “conformist” does not mean they have nothing useful to offer.
Moreover, in most internet conversations, the vast majority of readers are people who will never comment. If you have any interest in getting them to listen, coming across as rude, or unnecessarily obnoxious will not endear you to them.
It can be. Conventional social rules often mask disagreements and are designed to do that. If you stick to the social rules, the truth can take longer to come out.
I agree, but I didn’t say that.
I think stating the truth about things is enough not to endear yourself to a lot of people, so trying to endear yourself to them isn’t going to help.
I’m pretty sure it’s a mistake to lump together everyone who says induction is possible as “the mainstream tradition”.
They are all in the justificationist tradition, which is mainstream.
By that same logic, I could say “Popper is in the non-quantitative tradition, which is mainstream (in contrast to Bayesian epistemology)”. Reflecting one aspect of the mainstream, even a particularly important one, is still not sufficient for actually being mainstream.
You’re just arguing terminology. I don’t know what for. I was explaining what Brian meant.
Oops, I misread his “this mainstream tradition” as “the mainstream tradition”. Apologies.