Not really differrent. If you pander to someone by presenting dumbed-down ideas as profound, they are liable to like them and judge them to be useful. People judge junk food to be worth eating, after all.
they are liable to like them and judge them to be useful. People judge junk food to be worth eating, after all.
Are you arguing that judgments of usefulness have, in this case, (and others?) been distorted by the halo effect? Or have I misunderstood this comment?
Not the halo effect specifically. People are likely to make bad judgements about usefulness because such judgements are not easy to make. It takes some training. Someone who has been fed a dumbed-down diet is not going to be in a position to make a reliable judgement of the usefulness of the dumbed-down diet they have been fed.
Alright, who’s downvoting all comments in this conversation? If you have some objection to this line of discussion, come out and say it; don’t karmassassinate people.
EDIT: Ok, I may have misused “karmassassinate” there. I’m not sure. it’s annoying and unhelpful, whatever you call it.
I reject the idea that there’s something wrong with silent downvotes. (And “karmassassination” typically refers to downvoting a large chunk of a particular user’s posts without reference to their content, not to silent downvoting, nor to downvoting an entire conversational branch based on the branch’s content.)
eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
Not really differrent. If you pander to someone by presenting dumbed-down ideas as profound, they are liable to like them and judge them to be useful. People judge junk food to be worth eating, after all.
Are you arguing that judgments of usefulness have, in this case, (and others?) been distorted by the halo effect? Or have I misunderstood this comment?
Not the halo effect specifically. People are likely to make bad judgements about usefulness because such judgements are not easy to make. It takes some training. Someone who has been fed a dumbed-down diet is not going to be in a position to make a reliable judgement of the usefulness of the dumbed-down diet they have been fed.
Could you taboo “dumbed-down”? Because it appears I have no idea what you’re talking about (or you could be talking gibberish, I suppose.)
Alright, who’s downvoting all comments in this conversation? If you have some objection to this line of discussion, come out and say it; don’t karmassassinate people.
EDIT: Ok, I may have misused “karmassassinate” there. I’m not sure. it’s annoying and unhelpful, whatever you call it.
I reject the idea that there’s something wrong with silent downvotes. (And “karmassassination” typically refers to downvoting a large chunk of a particular user’s posts without reference to their content, not to silent downvoting, nor to downvoting an entire conversational branch based on the branch’s content.)
eg “Metathics isn’t complicated, it just awesomeness”. However “Metaethics is complicated, but you can get an initial toehold on it by considering awesomeness” is OK. That;s just introductory.
I’m aware that you think this is an example. Could you tell me what you mean?
Presenting something that is simplistic (too simple, lossy) as if it were adequate, or even superior to standard versions.
I see. And you claim that overexposure to such material has rendered the average LW member unable to detect oversimplification?
Thats my explanation for the upvoting that puzzled the articles’ author.
Thank you for clarifying.