I’m fine with someone commenting under a post: “I really liked that you wrote this”. I’m not fine with someone writing a comment that just contains “I really dislike you wrote this”.
That’s a double standard and I’m happily arguing in favor of it as it makes the interaction in a forum more friendly.
Yes, I’m fine with someone downvoting lazy criticism. Having different standards for different things is good. It seems to me very strange to expect that standards should be the same for all actions.
If you look at medicine you see they have huge epistemic double standards for benefits and side effects of drugs.
If I imagine having the same epistemic standards for allowing people to claim “Bob is a rapist” and allowing them to claim “Bob has good humor” that would seem to me really strange. We even have laws that enforce that double standard because largely society believes that it’s good to have epistemic double standards in that regard.
Allowing only evidence of certain form in some roles is a way of making it easier to judge when exploitability/bias/illegibility are expected to be an issue.
We are, I think, dealing with that old problem of motivated cognition. As Gilovich says: “Conclusions a person does not want to believe are held to a higher standard than those they do.
That is only very vaguely related to what I was saying. I was essentially pointing out that even benign examples of double standards serve particular purposes that don’t always apply, and when they don’t, it’s best to get rid of the double standards.
I’m fine with someone commenting under a post: “I really liked that you wrote this”. I’m not fine with someone writing a comment that just contains “I really dislike you wrote this”.
That’s a double standard and I’m happily arguing in favor of it as it makes the interaction in a forum more friendly.
Are you fine with downvoting?
And what about the epistemic double standard ?
Yes, I’m fine with someone downvoting lazy criticism. Having different standards for different things is good. It seems to me very strange to expect that standards should be the same for all actions.
If you look at medicine you see they have huge epistemic double standards for benefits and side effects of drugs.
If I imagine having the same epistemic standards for allowing people to claim “Bob is a rapist” and allowing them to claim “Bob has good humor” that would seem to me really strange. We even have laws that enforce that double standard because largely society believes that it’s good to have epistemic double standards in that regard.
Allowing only evidence of certain form in some roles is a way of making it easier to judge when exploitability/bias/illegibility are expected to be an issue.
This is a tradeoff. It’s wasteful when it’s not actually needed, and often enough it’s impossible to observe the form without losing sight of the target.
I can at least agree that:
That is only very vaguely related to what I was saying. I was essentially pointing out that even benign examples of double standards serve particular purposes that don’t always apply, and when they don’t, it’s best to get rid of the double standards.
Are you in favour of downvoting lazy praise?