Would you care to distinguish a means of discouraging people from spending effort on low-value things, from a means that simply discourages people from spending effort in general?
Sure, that’s easy: apply the discouragement (downvotes, critical comments, etc.) only to low-value things, and not to high-value things.
Or are you suggesting that you (or, perhaps, Less Wrong participants in general?) can’t tell the difference between low-value things and high-value things?
Perhaps there is no “virtue” in effort, but in this case we must ask why “virtue” is the thing we are measuring.
“Virtue” here means “whatever we take to be good and desirable, and that which produces those things”. We are measuring it because it is, by definition, the thing we want to be measuring.
If the goal is to maximize, not “virtue”, but high-quality posts, then I submit that (all else being equal) having more high-effort posts is more likely to accomplish this than having fewer high-quality posts.
[emphasis mine]
Did you mean to write “high-effort”, in place of the bolded part? (If, however, you meant what you wrote, then I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, here; please explain.)
And what does it mean to “encourage” or “discourage” a poster?
I mean whatever the OP means when he talks about adverse effects, etc.
But how often is it the case that a “long, in-depth analysis, which is lovingly illustrated [and] meticulously referenced” is, not only wrong, but so obviously wrong that the mistake can be pointed out via a simple one-liner?
What occurs more often, I think, is that a commenter finds themselves mistakenly under the impression that they have spotted an obvious error, and they act quickly to post what they believe to be an obvious refutation. I further claim that such cases are disproportionately responsible for the so-called “drive-by low-effort criticism” described in the OP. If this claim is true, then it should not be difficult to understand why some people might prefer to see less of this.
Yes, we should discourage low-quality criticism which is wrong, and encourage high-quality criticism which is right. (I already said this, in the grandparent.) Having accounted for this, it makes no sense at all to prefer longer critical comments to shorter ones. (Quite the opposite preference would be sensible, in fact.)
Yes, we should discourage low-quality criticism which is wrong, and encourage high-quality criticism which is right. (I already said this, in the grandparent.) Having accounted for this, it makes no sense at all to prefer longer critical comments to shorter ones. (Quite the opposite preference would be sensible, in fact.)
I think that compared to high-effort criticisms, low-effort criticisms are much more likely to be based on misunderstandings or otherwise low quality. I interpret Lionhearted as saying that criticism should, on the margin, be held to a higher bar than it is now.
What is the evaluation of “effort” even doing here? Why not just evaluate whether the criticism is high-quality, understands the post, is correct, etc?
Requiring “effort” (independent of quality) is a proof-of-work scheme meant to tax criticism.
Requiring “effort” (independent of quality) is a proof-of-work scheme meant to tax criticism.
Proof-of-work was originally invented to fight email spam. The analogous argument plausibly applies here: evaluating quality (e.g., letting a human read the email to decide what to do with it, trying to figure out whether a criticism actually makes sense) is costly, so it’s more efficient to first filter using a cheaper-to-evaluate signal/proxy like work/effort. (I don’t think this is the OP’s argument though, which is based more on low effort criticism feeling unpleasant or discouraging to some post authors. I’m kind of going off on a tangent based on your mention of “proof of work”.)
Now, at first glance this may seem orthogonal to what you said—which was about how much effort went into the criticism, rather than how much went into the post—but note that evaluation of a criticism as “low-effort” is relative. If I write a very well-researched and lengthy post, and you write the median comment (in effort, length, etc.) in reply, that is “low-effort” relative to the post I wrote, yes?
This implies that criticism which is low-effort relative to the post it is responding to, should not only not be held to a higher bar, but in fact that it should be held to a lower bar!
That having been said, it is of course good to discourage bad criticism. But the point is that “how much effort went into this” is simply orthogonal to quality—and this is true for posts as well as comments.
So, we should discourage bad posts, and encourage good ones. We should discourage bad criticism, and encourage good criticism.
We should not, however, encourage high-effort posts merely for being high-effort, nor should we discourage low-effort criticism merely for being low-effort. What matters is results.
And note that the fact that low-effort criticisms are “more likely to be based on misunderstandings or otherwise low quality” is irrelevant. We can, and should, simply judge whether any given comment actually is a misunderstanding, etc., and respond appropriately.
Sure, that’s easy: apply the discouragement (downvotes, critical comments, etc.) only to low-value things, and not to high-value things.
Or are you suggesting that you (or, perhaps, Less Wrong participants in general?) can’t tell the difference between low-value things and high-value things?
“Virtue” here means “whatever we take to be good and desirable, and that which produces those things”. We are measuring it because it is, by definition, the thing we want to be measuring.
[emphasis mine]
Did you mean to write “high-effort”, in place of the bolded part? (If, however, you meant what you wrote, then I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, here; please explain.)
I mean whatever the OP means when he talks about adverse effects, etc.
Not that often, sadly. (Here’s an example. Here’s another. Here’s one which is three short sentences. Here’s another one-liner. This one is two sentences. This one is also two sentences. Another one-liner.) It’s hard to do this sort of thing well; it’s easier to write a long, rambling comment. That is exactly why such density of refutation should be encouraged, not discouraged; because it is highly desirable, but difficult (and thus rare).
Yes, we should discourage low-quality criticism which is wrong, and encourage high-quality criticism which is right. (I already said this, in the grandparent.) Having accounted for this, it makes no sense at all to prefer longer critical comments to shorter ones. (Quite the opposite preference would be sensible, in fact.)
I think that compared to high-effort criticisms, low-effort criticisms are much more likely to be based on misunderstandings or otherwise low quality. I interpret Lionhearted as saying that criticism should, on the margin, be held to a higher bar than it is now.
What is the evaluation of “effort” even doing here? Why not just evaluate whether the criticism is high-quality, understands the post, is correct, etc?
Requiring “effort” (independent of quality) is a proof-of-work scheme meant to tax criticism.
Proof-of-work was originally invented to fight email spam. The analogous argument plausibly applies here: evaluating quality (e.g., letting a human read the email to decide what to do with it, trying to figure out whether a criticism actually makes sense) is costly, so it’s more efficient to first filter using a cheaper-to-evaluate signal/proxy like work/effort. (I don’t think this is the OP’s argument though, which is based more on low effort criticism feeling unpleasant or discouraging to some post authors. I’m kind of going off on a tangent based on your mention of “proof of work”.)
ETA: I recalled that I actually wrote a post about this: Think Before You Speak (And Signal It).
As clone of saturn points out elsethread, criticism of high-effort posts is especially valuable.
Now, at first glance this may seem orthogonal to what you said—which was about how much effort went into the criticism, rather than how much went into the post—but note that evaluation of a criticism as “low-effort” is relative. If I write a very well-researched and lengthy post, and you write the median comment (in effort, length, etc.) in reply, that is “low-effort” relative to the post I wrote, yes?
This implies that criticism which is low-effort relative to the post it is responding to, should not only not be held to a higher bar, but in fact that it should be held to a lower bar!
That having been said, it is of course good to discourage bad criticism. But the point is that “how much effort went into this” is simply orthogonal to quality—and this is true for posts as well as comments.
So, we should discourage bad posts, and encourage good ones. We should discourage bad criticism, and encourage good criticism.
We should not, however, encourage high-effort posts merely for being high-effort, nor should we discourage low-effort criticism merely for being low-effort. What matters is results.
And note that the fact that low-effort criticisms are “more likely to be based on misunderstandings or otherwise low quality” is irrelevant. We can, and should, simply judge whether any given comment actually is a misunderstanding, etc., and respond appropriately.