Expected downvotes are still just imagined downvotes.
And Karma’s purpose is Karma’s problem; not Tim’s, and not mine.
Tim thinks he has quality material to post that he expects some people to vote down. On balance, I don’t think Tim’s purposes are served by this. He’s letting himself be controlled by some handful of people he disagrees with, for no significant gain.
Writing a quality post takes effort that is orders of magnitude more costly than 3 thumbs down. If it’s worth spending that effort in the first place, a handful of downvotes should not change that that—they’re insignificant by comparison.
Tim actions are not consistent with his conscious values, as estimated by me.
He’s letting himself be controlled by some handful of people he disagrees with, for no significant gain.
You might be right. I think my best defense is that your analysis of expected gain fails to account for opportunity cost. I could go troll a religious forum. And I could do so in a way that would enhance the rationality of the average reader (if believed / accepted by that reader). But that caveat is pretty huge when evaluating opportunity cost.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the expected/imagined/whatever thing is a red herring; your comment applies just as well to actual downvotes. Your claim is Tim ought not take downvotes into consideration when evaluating the value of a post, whether they be expected downvotes on expected posts, imaginary downvotes on imaginary posts, or actual downvotes on actual posts.
Yes?
Karma’s purpose is not unrelated to this question. If net karma approximates an expression of the community’s judgment of the value of the post to the community (which it’s supposed to, though it’s not clear it does) then net downvotes indicate the community judges that a post is of negative value to the community. Tim might update away from his belief that the post is valuable based on that judgment. (And, relatedly, update away from it based on his expectation of that judgment for an unsubmitted post.)
Of course, you might say in turn that the judgment of the community (whether actual or expected) should itself not cause Tim to change his belief.
the expected/imagined/whatever thing is a red herring;
It’s not a red herring, it’s another reason.
Your claim is Tim ought not take downvotes into consideration when evaluating the value of a post, whether they be expected downvotes on expected posts, imaginary downvotes on imaginary posts, or actual downvotes on actual posts.
Yes?
No. Downvotes are information. Don’t ignore them. But don’t let them keep you from what you consider the right thing. The context was of him not posting what he considered quality material, anticipating downvotes.
If net karma approximates an expression of the community’s judgment of the value of the post to the community (which it’s supposed to, though it’s not clear it does)
I generally behave as though net karma does mean that, under the principle that this is one way I can encourage it to more closely approximate meaning that over time, and I would prefer it did so.
He lets expected karma downvotes keep him from posting quality material, not imagined downvotes.
If the purpose of karma is not to influence posting behavior in a positive way, then what IS its purpose?
Expected downvotes are still just imagined downvotes.
And Karma’s purpose is Karma’s problem; not Tim’s, and not mine.
Tim thinks he has quality material to post that he expects some people to vote down. On balance, I don’t think Tim’s purposes are served by this. He’s letting himself be controlled by some handful of people he disagrees with, for no significant gain.
Writing a quality post takes effort that is orders of magnitude more costly than 3 thumbs down. If it’s worth spending that effort in the first place, a handful of downvotes should not change that that—they’re insignificant by comparison.
Tim actions are not consistent with his conscious values, as estimated by me.
You might be right. I think my best defense is that your analysis of expected gain fails to account for opportunity cost. I could go troll a religious forum. And I could do so in a way that would enhance the rationality of the average reader (if believed / accepted by that reader). But that caveat is pretty huge when evaluating opportunity cost.
If I’m understanding you correctly, the expected/imagined/whatever thing is a red herring; your comment applies just as well to actual downvotes. Your claim is Tim ought not take downvotes into consideration when evaluating the value of a post, whether they be expected downvotes on expected posts, imaginary downvotes on imaginary posts, or actual downvotes on actual posts.
Yes?
Karma’s purpose is not unrelated to this question. If net karma approximates an expression of the community’s judgment of the value of the post to the community (which it’s supposed to, though it’s not clear it does) then net downvotes indicate the community judges that a post is of negative value to the community. Tim might update away from his belief that the post is valuable based on that judgment. (And, relatedly, update away from it based on his expectation of that judgment for an unsubmitted post.)
Of course, you might say in turn that the judgment of the community (whether actual or expected) should itself not cause Tim to change his belief.
It’s not a red herring, it’s another reason.
No. Downvotes are information. Don’t ignore them. But don’t let them keep you from what you consider the right thing. The context was of him not posting what he considered quality material, anticipating downvotes.
I don’t suppose that at all. Do you?
I generally behave as though net karma does mean that, under the principle that this is one way I can encourage it to more closely approximate meaning that over time, and I would prefer it did so.