So, on Reddit I notice that asking after the “most popular” posts usually brings up the least intellectually stimulating content, presumably because easy content is processed and upvoted faster. Even in a high quality subreddit, clicking the “top all time” icon brings up memes and vapid statements.
Now, while I have to say that all these Lesswrong posts were definitely high quality and worth my time to read, I do think that among these, the most popular posts and articles were not among the most thought provoking ones that we have here.
Instead, the most popular posts and articles here basically restate statements which I already understand and rather strongly agree with. Yes, I think they are insightful, but that is primarily because they mirror my own pre-formed views on the matters being discussed and like most people I tend to find my own opinions insightful. Whereas, those posts which actually gave me a novel idea to play with were not necessarily the most popular.
Note that this is not a criticism against the top articles themselves (I enjoyed reading them immensely). I’m just pointing out a trait inherent in user-generated moderation (up/down votes). The top content tend to be shallower and more agreeable, whereas more substantial or controversial content tends not to float to the top as quickly.
I think the reason that this happens (in general) is that shallow content can be processed quickly by the reader, and it is easy to judge whether or not you like it. With more substantial content, it takes a while to process and it is more difficult to decide whether or not you like it because it is more sophisticated. So even though nobody really likes reddit internet memes, they float to the top because they are good at getting votes.
What’s interesting is that lesswrong users love substantial content and set quite a high standard. The users here will downvote anything which is too shallow. So our Lesswrong variant on the “internet meme” (uncontroversial, easy to follow generalizations that we all agree with) are still very well written and a pleasure to read.
It’s just an interesting dynamic and I thought I’d point it out.
I think of these articles, the only one which really taught me something was “logical pinpointing” (explaining first and second order logic, and introducing the viewpoint that axioms as “pin down” concepts rather than construct them) but that was all the way at #8.
That’s not to say it was the best article here of course—just that I personally was either already familiar with or had independently arrived at the ideas described within the others. That particular article’s novelty is probably peculiar to me (quite a few of the other articles would have been novel to me four years ago, for example) but I suspect that if everyone here were to list which articles on lesswrong taught them something they didn’t already know, only a small portion of that list would end up on top (once adjusting for the fact that top articles are viewed more often)
What if our voting system looked something like this, making room for both the enticing subjective vote as well as the democratic objective one? That tweak would fix all my bad voting habits.
I get the first three (fun to read upvote, novel or educational upvote, and downvote)
but what’s the last button mean?
“I agree to follow this course of action or policy and / or I think this person’s opinion is correct?”
And how would we explain to new users that it isn’t what it looks like...also, I’m wondering what context this image was originally created in...
On a serious note, we don’t want to get too complicated...but I wouldn’t object to a three button system. “Like” “Dislike” and “I personally learned something new, considered a novel idea, or updated an opinion as a result of this article or comment”.
Because while I tend to like reading well written articles which phrase my opinions more articulately than I myself could, I’d also like to be able to bring up the more difficult and rewarding pieces on command.
I’m guessing since we’ve apparently established that the average user here is gifted, we can trust people to use the “novel/learn/update” button correctly and with appropriate frugality. It would also be good for feedback purposes.
Seeing how you would interpret each icon based on context was an experiment in design.
The last icon is for the “circlejerk”: your objective sad face.
This is the part of my reply where i see i should offer more time to collecting hyperlinks for examples, but i hope it follows easily enough:
Relevant xkcd to voting systems: happy button only from me.
Someone saying they got their bike stolen while they were voting: sad button only
Peer-reviewed paper about voting in forums: brain button only
Peer-reviewed paper about the shape of Antarctica: sperm button
Peer-reviewed paper about Maru and the evolution of voting on Youtube: happy button and brain button from me.
Pun threads concerning voting: happy button and the sperm button from me.
Any opinion shared with Caps Lock: sad button and sperm button
Peer-reviewed paper about gun violence and voting systems: sad button and brain button from me.
Any other combinations would defeat themselves, so im don’t see any reason to click three buttons or all four. Perhaps the objective votes of brain and sperm are unlocked the way voting is unlocked in AskUbuntu’s forums: only after certain contributions and/or circumstances are met.
That’s what i’ll be fighting for at least. I vote subjectively and i vote objectively. If you make me choose, i’m going for the subjective vote every time. Best to break the two apart.
sperm: Brains have two hemispheres; i wonder if there’s correlation....
So, on Reddit I notice that asking after the “most popular” posts usually brings up the least intellectually stimulating content, presumably because easy content is processed and upvoted faster. Even in a high quality subreddit, clicking the “top all time” icon brings up memes and vapid statements.
Now, while I have to say that all these Lesswrong posts were definitely high quality and worth my time to read, I do think that among these, the most popular posts and articles were not among the most thought provoking ones that we have here.
Instead, the most popular posts and articles here basically restate statements which I already understand and rather strongly agree with. Yes, I think they are insightful, but that is primarily because they mirror my own pre-formed views on the matters being discussed and like most people I tend to find my own opinions insightful. Whereas, those posts which actually gave me a novel idea to play with were not necessarily the most popular.
Note that this is not a criticism against the top articles themselves (I enjoyed reading them immensely). I’m just pointing out a trait inherent in user-generated moderation (up/down votes). The top content tend to be shallower and more agreeable, whereas more substantial or controversial content tends not to float to the top as quickly.
I think the reason that this happens (in general) is that shallow content can be processed quickly by the reader, and it is easy to judge whether or not you like it. With more substantial content, it takes a while to process and it is more difficult to decide whether or not you like it because it is more sophisticated. So even though nobody really likes reddit internet memes, they float to the top because they are good at getting votes.
What’s interesting is that lesswrong users love substantial content and set quite a high standard. The users here will downvote anything which is too shallow. So our Lesswrong variant on the “internet meme” (uncontroversial, easy to follow generalizations that we all agree with) are still very well written and a pleasure to read.
It’s just an interesting dynamic and I thought I’d point it out.
I think of these articles, the only one which really taught me something was “logical pinpointing” (explaining first and second order logic, and introducing the viewpoint that axioms as “pin down” concepts rather than construct them) but that was all the way at #8.
That’s not to say it was the best article here of course—just that I personally was either already familiar with or had independently arrived at the ideas described within the others. That particular article’s novelty is probably peculiar to me (quite a few of the other articles would have been novel to me four years ago, for example) but I suspect that if everyone here were to list which articles on lesswrong taught them something they didn’t already know, only a small portion of that list would end up on top (once adjusting for the fact that top articles are viewed more often)
What if our voting system looked something like this, making room for both the enticing subjective vote as well as the democratic objective one? That tweak would fix all my bad voting habits.
I get the first three (fun to read upvote, novel or educational upvote, and downvote)
but what’s the last button mean?
“I agree to follow this course of action or policy and / or I think this person’s opinion is correct?”
And how would we explain to new users that it isn’t what it looks like...also, I’m wondering what context this image was originally created in...
On a serious note, we don’t want to get too complicated...but I wouldn’t object to a three button system. “Like” “Dislike” and “I personally learned something new, considered a novel idea, or updated an opinion as a result of this article or comment”.
Because while I tend to like reading well written articles which phrase my opinions more articulately than I myself could, I’d also like to be able to bring up the more difficult and rewarding pieces on command.
I’m guessing since we’ve apparently established that the average user here is gifted, we can trust people to use the “novel/learn/update” button correctly and with appropriate frugality. It would also be good for feedback purposes.
Seeing how you would interpret each icon based on context was an experiment in design.
The last icon is for the “circlejerk”: your objective sad face.
This is the part of my reply where i see i should offer more time to collecting hyperlinks for examples, but i hope it follows easily enough:
Relevant xkcd to voting systems: happy button only from me.
Someone saying they got their bike stolen while they were voting: sad button only
Peer-reviewed paper about voting in forums: brain button only
Peer-reviewed paper about the shape of Antarctica: sperm button
Peer-reviewed paper about Maru and the evolution of voting on Youtube: happy button and brain button from me.
Pun threads concerning voting: happy button and the sperm button from me.
Any opinion shared with Caps Lock: sad button and sperm button
Peer-reviewed paper about gun violence and voting systems: sad button and brain button from me.
Any other combinations would defeat themselves, so im don’t see any reason to click three buttons or all four. Perhaps the objective votes of brain and sperm are unlocked the way voting is unlocked in AskUbuntu’s forums: only after certain contributions and/or circumstances are met.
That’s what i’ll be fighting for at least. I vote subjectively and i vote objectively. If you make me choose, i’m going for the subjective vote every time. Best to break the two apart.
sperm: Brains have two hemispheres; i wonder if there’s correlation....