Something it might tell is e.g. that the downvoters are the people who actually took the time to read the article linked and founds themselves considering it inferior. While the upvoters just upvoted without reading.
I disagree with this analysis, but don’t feel it productive to argue about this here. I’m seeing many mind-killed down votes for various comments and articles any argument I make will only inflame the sides involved.
You may be overestimating how many downvotes are due to partisanship—I’m not particularly opposed to Moldbug -per se* (he has interesting stuff to say), but ended up downvoting the post both because of the needlessly trollish title, and the low quality of the discussion it created.
Sure the title is Moldbug’s, but I would have much preferred if the lesswrong title was something like “Real vs. fake underdogs” (like you, I wouldn’t have posted this article here at all).
I disagree with this analysis, but don’t feel it productive to argue about this here. I’m seeing many mind-killed down votes for various comments and articles any argument I make will only inflame the sides involved.
You may be overestimating how many downvotes are due to partisanship—I’m not particularly opposed to Moldbug -per se* (he has interesting stuff to say), but ended up downvoting the post both because of the needlessly trollish title, and the low quality of the discussion it created.
Sure the title is Moldbug’s, but I would have much preferred if the lesswrong title was something like “Real vs. fake underdogs” (like you, I wouldn’t have posted this article here at all).
Right but its not so much how the article is voted but how the comments are.