Karma votes on this site are fickle, superficial, and reward percieved humour and wit much more than they do hard work and local unconventionality; you’re allowed to be unconventional to the world-at-large, even encouraged to, if it’s conventional in LW; the reverse is not encouraged.
Your work was both novel and completely in line with what is popular here, and so it thrived. Try to present a novel perspective arguing against things that are unanymously liked yet culture-specific, such as sex or alcohol or sarcasm or Twitter or market economies as automatic optimizers, and you might not fare as well.
You can pick up on those trends by following the Twitter accounts of notable LWers, watch them pat each other on the back for expressing beliefs that signal their belonging to the tribe, and mimick them for easy karma, which you can stock reserves of for the times where you feel absolutely compelled to take a stand for an unpopular idea.
This problem is endemic of Karma systems and makes LW no worse than any other community. It’s just that one would expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Yes, humour tends to be upvoted a lot, but it’s just not true that you can never get good karma by arguing against the LW majority position. For example, the most upvoted top-level post ever expresses scepticism about the Singularity Institute.
You indeed didn’t say “never”, but the implied meaning was closer to it than to the “not the most probable outcome” interpretation.
Also, saying that LW tends to upvote LW-conventional writings seems a little tautological, unless you have got a karma-independent way to assess LW-conventionality. Do you?
Also, saying that LW tends to upvote LW-conventional writings seems a little tautological, unless you have got a karma-independent way to assess LW-conventionality. Do you?
Count the number of comments that express the same notion. Or count the number of users that express said thought and contrast it with the number of users that contradict the thought.
It’s just that one would expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
I notice that you’re discussing what “they” do on LW. Not that I can honestly object; I’m often tempted to do so myself. It really helps when trying to draw the line between my own ideas, and all those crazy ideas everyone else here has.
But I think we are both actually fairly typical LWers, which means that it would be more correct to say something like “It’s just that one would expect us to hold ourselves to a higher standard”. This is a very different thought somehow, more than one would expect from a mere pronoun substitution.
It seems to me that the change is that with “us” the speaker is assumed to identify with the group under discussion. Specifically, it seems like they consider(ed) LW superior, and are disappointed that we have failed in this particular; whereas with “they” it seems to be accusing us of hypocrisy.
This problem is endemic of Karma systems and makes LW no worse than any other community. It’s just that one would expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Karma votes on this site are fickle, superficial, and reward percieved humour and wit much more than they do hard work and local unconventionality; you’re allowed to be unconventional to the world-at-large, even encouraged to, if it’s conventional in LW; the reverse is not encouraged.
Your work was both novel and completely in line with what is popular here, and so it thrived. Try to present a novel perspective arguing against things that are unanymously liked yet culture-specific, such as sex or alcohol or sarcasm or Twitter or market economies as automatic optimizers, and you might not fare as well.
You can pick up on those trends by following the Twitter accounts of notable LWers, watch them pat each other on the back for expressing beliefs that signal their belonging to the tribe, and mimick them for easy karma, which you can stock reserves of for the times where you feel absolutely compelled to take a stand for an unpopular idea.
This problem is endemic of Karma systems and makes LW no worse than any other community. It’s just that one would expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Awesome post, BTW. Nice brain-hacking.
Yes, humour tends to be upvoted a lot, but it’s just not true that you can never get good karma by arguing against the LW majority position. For example, the most upvoted top-level post ever expresses scepticism about the Singularity Institute.
I never said “never”; I implied that it’s not the most probable outcome.
You indeed didn’t say “never”, but the implied meaning was closer to it than to the “not the most probable outcome” interpretation.
Also, saying that LW tends to upvote LW-conventional writings seems a little tautological, unless you have got a karma-independent way to assess LW-conventionality. Do you?
Count the number of comments that express the same notion. Or count the number of users that express said thought and contrast it with the number of users that contradict the thought.
Thank you, werd.
This is my failure as a communicator and I apologize for it.
I notice that you’re discussing what “they” do on LW. Not that I can honestly object; I’m often tempted to do so myself. It really helps when trying to draw the line between my own ideas, and all those crazy ideas everyone else here has.
But I think we are both actually fairly typical LWers, which means that it would be more correct to say something like “It’s just that one would expect us to hold ourselves to a higher standard”. This is a very different thought somehow, more than one would expect from a mere pronoun substitution.
“Them” as in “the rest of the community, excepting the exceptions”. I hold myself to those standards just fine, and there may well be others who do.
Relatedly, I often find replacing “one would expect” with “I expect” has similar effects.
Especially when it turns out the latter isn’t true.
It seems to me that the change is that with “us” the speaker is assumed to identify with the group under discussion. Specifically, it seems like they consider(ed) LW superior, and are disappointed that we have failed in this particular; whereas with “they” it seems to be accusing us of hypocrisy.
hear, hear!