How many times have you started typing a comment and then thought, “No, that’ll get downvoted.”
You are doing it consciously? I do not doubt that I am influenced by the karma system somehow (I certainly have the positive feelings when the score moves up), but to intentionally tailor the comments for purposes of karma gain seems wrong to me.
to intentionally tailor the comments for purposes of karma gain seems wrong to me.
Seems wrong why? Wrong how? That strikes me as an intuition worth analyzing.
We sometimes characterize what we are doing here as “sharing ideas”. But the word “sharing” is somewhat ambiguous. Are we sharing altruistically—providing others with something they need/want? Is it more of a social-bonding thing—similar to sharing of candy among schoolchildren, or sharing of juicy gossip or the latest joke?
Introspecting my own reasons for posting, I think that the primary motivations are approval-seeking and (sometimes) a desire for honest intellectual feedback regarding an idea I just had. If I tune the wording of a comment or posting for maximum karma, how am I subverting either of those motives?
As for my commenting, I can think of five basic classes of motivations:
Curiosity. This covers asking questions when I think others may have some insight or know something which I don’t know. Sometimes, curiosity may lead to try initiate a discussion about some topic, usually when I am unable to formulate a direct question, or don’t know what to ask.
Sharing information. If I think some idea is worth attention (or simply relevant and funny) and has not yet appeared in the thread, I may post it.
Exerting influence. I may try to convince the others to do something (e.g. code a meetup bar for the main site, stop talking to “trolls”...) so that LW becomes more suitable to my preferences. Convincing others about something may fall here or under the previous category.
Social games. This includes expressing thanks for good comments or posts, supporting or criticising positions, status grabbing by harvesting karma or displaying intelligence. Most of motivations belonging to the category 2 have a fair share of social signalling too.
Answering questions. (Edited to add; somehow I have overlooked the motivation of this very comment.)
I do consciously prefer the other types of motivation to the fourth one. One reason is that social signalling is already subconsciously the strongest motivator for participating in a discussion, and it may be preferable to compensate a bit. Standard debates all over the world are full of type-4 motivated contributions, and the results aren’t optimal.
That isn’t to say that we should omit social signalling at all, or that we shouldn’t take care of the formulation of a comment or a post. Only that the signalling purposes should play a secondary role to the other motivations—if I want to ask a question or present an insight, I shouldn’t refrain from doing so based on an expectation of being downvoted (there are situations when I should, but those are exceptions). Similarly, I shouldn’t post a comment if the only motivation is to get upvotes.
There is a difference between communicating in a way approved by the community, and trying to communicating in order to get approval. If the latter was the norm, evaporative cooling of our opinions would become a serious danger. I was alerted mainly by this sentence present in the grand-parent comment:
If you care about karma, you’re going to say wildly different things that you would otherwise. (emphasis mine)
Saying wildly different things for want of approval raises a particular red flag for me, and therefore I wanted a clarification. Not that I am innocent in this respect: although I respect people who are willing to sacrifice some karma when necessary, I can’t remember of posting something controversial myself. Which I am a little worried about.
You are doing it consciously? I do not doubt that I am influenced by the karma system somehow (I certainly have the positive feelings when the score moves up), but to intentionally tailor the comments for purposes of karma gain seems wrong to me.
Seems wrong why? Wrong how? That strikes me as an intuition worth analyzing.
We sometimes characterize what we are doing here as “sharing ideas”. But the word “sharing” is somewhat ambiguous. Are we sharing altruistically—providing others with something they need/want? Is it more of a social-bonding thing—similar to sharing of candy among schoolchildren, or sharing of juicy gossip or the latest joke?
Introspecting my own reasons for posting, I think that the primary motivations are approval-seeking and (sometimes) a desire for honest intellectual feedback regarding an idea I just had. If I tune the wording of a comment or posting for maximum karma, how am I subverting either of those motives?
As for my commenting, I can think of five basic classes of motivations:
Curiosity. This covers asking questions when I think others may have some insight or know something which I don’t know. Sometimes, curiosity may lead to try initiate a discussion about some topic, usually when I am unable to formulate a direct question, or don’t know what to ask.
Sharing information. If I think some idea is worth attention (or simply relevant and funny) and has not yet appeared in the thread, I may post it.
Exerting influence. I may try to convince the others to do something (e.g. code a meetup bar for the main site, stop talking to “trolls”...) so that LW becomes more suitable to my preferences. Convincing others about something may fall here or under the previous category.
Social games. This includes expressing thanks for good comments or posts, supporting or criticising positions, status grabbing by harvesting karma or displaying intelligence. Most of motivations belonging to the category 2 have a fair share of social signalling too.
Answering questions. (Edited to add; somehow I have overlooked the motivation of this very comment.)
I do consciously prefer the other types of motivation to the fourth one. One reason is that social signalling is already subconsciously the strongest motivator for participating in a discussion, and it may be preferable to compensate a bit. Standard debates all over the world are full of type-4 motivated contributions, and the results aren’t optimal.
That isn’t to say that we should omit social signalling at all, or that we shouldn’t take care of the formulation of a comment or a post. Only that the signalling purposes should play a secondary role to the other motivations—if I want to ask a question or present an insight, I shouldn’t refrain from doing so based on an expectation of being downvoted (there are situations when I should, but those are exceptions). Similarly, I shouldn’t post a comment if the only motivation is to get upvotes.
There is a difference between communicating in a way approved by the community, and trying to communicating in order to get approval. If the latter was the norm, evaporative cooling of our opinions would become a serious danger. I was alerted mainly by this sentence present in the grand-parent comment:
Saying wildly different things for want of approval raises a particular red flag for me, and therefore I wanted a clarification. Not that I am innocent in this respect: although I respect people who are willing to sacrifice some karma when necessary, I can’t remember of posting something controversial myself. Which I am a little worried about.