My main criterion for up-voting comments and posts is whether I think others would be likely to benefit from reading them. This topic has come up a few times already with much better analysis, so I did not up-vote.
My main criterion for down-voting is whether I think it is actively detrimental to thought or discussion about a topic. Your post doesn’t meet that criterion either (despite the inflammatory title), so I did not down-vote it.
Your comment in this thread does meet that criterion, and I’ve down-voted it. It is irrelevant to the topic of the post, does not introduce any interesting argument, applies a single judgement without evidence to a diverse group of people, and is adversarial, casting disagreement with or mere lack of interest in your original point in terms of deliberate suppression of a point of view.
So no, you have not been down-voted for “pointing it out”. You have (at least in my case) been down-voted for poisoning the well.
Exactly. There isn’t a generally followed rule that you can’t make sweeping assertions, or that everyone must be supported by evidence. What people actually dislike is comments that portray rationalism negatively, and those are held to a much higher standard than positive comments. But of course, no one wants to state an explicit rule that “we operate a double standard”.
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.
My main criterion for up-voting comments and posts is whether I think others would be likely to benefit from reading them. This topic has come up a few times already with much better analysis, so I did not up-vote.
My main criterion for down-voting is whether I think it is actively detrimental to thought or discussion about a topic. Your post doesn’t meet that criterion either (despite the inflammatory title), so I did not down-vote it.
Your comment in this thread does meet that criterion, and I’ve down-voted it. It is irrelevant to the topic of the post, does not introduce any interesting argument, applies a single judgement without evidence to a diverse group of people, and is adversarial, casting disagreement with or mere lack of interest in your original point in terms of deliberate suppression of a point of view.
So no, you have not been down-voted for “pointing it out”. You have (at least in my case) been down-voted for poisoning the well.
So does this:
Yes, it does. In a charitable way.
Exactly. There isn’t a generally followed rule that you can’t make sweeping assertions, or that everyone must be supported by evidence. What people actually dislike is comments that portray rationalism negatively, and those are held to a much higher standard than positive comments. But of course, no one wants to state an explicit rule that “we operate a double standard”.
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?
Did you even read the last line of my comment?
I down-voted you for poisoning the well.
When I quoted evidence of EY ad-homming someone?