I guess I’m not going to win any karma awards. Unless there was an award for the person with the least karma. Would I win? Has anybody had less than −69 karma? Actually, −69 karma is kinda sexy. Maybe a good name for a band? To listen to while having strange sex with a mildly attractive robot?
I suppose it could be argued that having an anti-karma award would create a perverse incentive. You wouldn’t want people intentionally saying irrational things if the anti-karma award suddenly became prestigious. Well… actually, if the anti-karma award did become prestigious… then maybe people would think twice before they voted things down. That could be a good thing. Of course I’m just saying that because I’m a little biased. hah.
Well… since this is going to be downvoted anyways… I might as well get my money’s worth...
This voting thing is just as stupid as regular voting. Do you know why it’s stupid? Because there’s no cost involved! How in the world can you truly trust the results of contingent valuation techniques?
If you think resources can be efficiently allocated in the absence of some cost… then you probably also believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Which means that you’re completely ignorant of basic economics.
In order for comments (and articles) to be efficiently allocated… you have to put a real life price on votes. In other words, if you really want the most valuable comments to be at the top and the least valuable ones to be at the bottom… then voters have to be turned into spenders.
If downvoting this comment of mine would cost you $1 dollar … then you’re going to think just a little harder than if it cost you $0 dollars. You’re going to put more thought into it because if you spend that $1 downvoting this comment that you dislike… then you can’t also spend that same dollar upvoting a comment that you like. This is the fundamentally basic and extremely important opportunity cost concept. It’s how we get to the truth of people’s values.
If we injected actual opportunity cost into the comments… then the allocation of the comments would far more accurately reflect the true values of the members of this website. It wouldn’t reflect their opinions… it would reflect their values.
How would it work? You just allow people to donate, via paypal or whatever, any amount to this website. Each dollar they donate becomes a dollar in their Less Wrong bank account. Then you just tweak the programming a bit and voila! The allocation of comments transforms from bullshit to truth.
Right now the allocation of karma has to be bullshit. Why? Because a thumbs up or down really isn’t a bet...
Overall, I am for betting because I am against bullshit. Bullshit is polluting our discourse and drowning the facts. A bet costs the bullshitter more than the non-bullshitter so the willingness to bet signals honest belief. A bet is a tax on bullshit; and it is a just tax, tribute paid by the bullshitters to those with genuine knowledge. - Alex Tabarrok, A Bet is a Tax on Bullshit
If you like that quote… then on this page… Louder … is a link to a PDF document with 62 additional quotes/passages on the value of people putting their money where their mouths are.
Because the current allocation of karma is bullshit… the karma awards are as laughable as the outcome of any political election.
Like most of you I’m an atheist but the bible has at least one thing right… and that’s the fact that sacrifice communicates value. It’s not… god so loved the world that he voted for it… it’s… god so loved the world that he sacrificed his son for it. It’s one thing to say that you love your country so much that you vote… and it’s another thing to say that you love your country so much that you sent your only son to Afghanistan to defend it.
Which member of this community is most worthy of your own sacrifice? Who would you most be willing to bet on? How much would you be willing to bet on them?
Of course I’m sure somebody’s thinking that this would give way too much influence to the wealthy. Wrong! It would simply allow the wealthy to wield the influence that they already have. And if you don’t like it, then write an article that convinces me that consumer sovereignty subverts, rather than manifests, the true will of the people.
Not all signalling that costs money is a bet—if there’s no way for correct judgement to be rewarded then you’re not talking about a tax on bullshit, you’re talking about a tax on speech. Which might be desirable for someone whose main experience of speech here is criticism of your ideas, but would probably not be a big step forward for LW.
I guess I’m not going to win any karma awards. Unless there was an award for the person with the least karma. Would I win? Has anybody had less than −69 karma? Actually, −69 karma is kinda sexy. Maybe a good name for a band? To listen to while having strange sex with a mildly attractive robot?
I suppose it could be argued that having an anti-karma award would create a perverse incentive. You wouldn’t want people intentionally saying irrational things if the anti-karma award suddenly became prestigious. Well… actually, if the anti-karma award did become prestigious… then maybe people would think twice before they voted things down. That could be a good thing. Of course I’m just saying that because I’m a little biased. hah.
Well… since this is going to be downvoted anyways… I might as well get my money’s worth...
This voting thing is just as stupid as regular voting. Do you know why it’s stupid? Because there’s no cost involved! How in the world can you truly trust the results of contingent valuation techniques?
If you think resources can be efficiently allocated in the absence of some cost… then you probably also believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Which means that you’re completely ignorant of basic economics.
In order for comments (and articles) to be efficiently allocated… you have to put a real life price on votes. In other words, if you really want the most valuable comments to be at the top and the least valuable ones to be at the bottom… then voters have to be turned into spenders.
If downvoting this comment of mine would cost you $1 dollar … then you’re going to think just a little harder than if it cost you $0 dollars. You’re going to put more thought into it because if you spend that $1 downvoting this comment that you dislike… then you can’t also spend that same dollar upvoting a comment that you like. This is the fundamentally basic and extremely important opportunity cost concept. It’s how we get to the truth of people’s values.
If we injected actual opportunity cost into the comments… then the allocation of the comments would far more accurately reflect the true values of the members of this website. It wouldn’t reflect their opinions… it would reflect their values.
How would it work? You just allow people to donate, via paypal or whatever, any amount to this website. Each dollar they donate becomes a dollar in their Less Wrong bank account. Then you just tweak the programming a bit and voila! The allocation of comments transforms from bullshit to truth.
Right now the allocation of karma has to be bullshit. Why? Because a thumbs up or down really isn’t a bet...
If you like that quote… then on this page… Louder … is a link to a PDF document with 62 additional quotes/passages on the value of people putting their money where their mouths are.
Because the current allocation of karma is bullshit… the karma awards are as laughable as the outcome of any political election.
Like most of you I’m an atheist but the bible has at least one thing right… and that’s the fact that sacrifice communicates value. It’s not… god so loved the world that he voted for it… it’s… god so loved the world that he sacrificed his son for it. It’s one thing to say that you love your country so much that you vote… and it’s another thing to say that you love your country so much that you sent your only son to Afghanistan to defend it.
Which member of this community is most worthy of your own sacrifice? Who would you most be willing to bet on? How much would you be willing to bet on them?
Of course I’m sure somebody’s thinking that this would give way too much influence to the wealthy. Wrong! It would simply allow the wealthy to wield the influence that they already have. And if you don’t like it, then write an article that convinces me that consumer sovereignty subverts, rather than manifests, the true will of the people.
You can trust by looking at the results that the process produces. The empiric method.
You getting negative karma is the system working as intended.
Not all signalling that costs money is a bet—if there’s no way for correct judgement to be rewarded then you’re not talking about a tax on bullshit, you’re talking about a tax on speech. Which might be desirable for someone whose main experience of speech here is criticism of your ideas, but would probably not be a big step forward for LW.