Ah, a vote in favour of strife. Yes, that’s what it is. If you start off from the premise of a world full of unfair, mean, nasty people, you do still have the choice of either adapting by joining their ranks, or ensuring that the patch of reality you control remains well-defended from the corruption. This is a very useful matter to conceive of in terms of tendencies. What to promote? Harmony, or strife? You’re pushing for more strife now in what seems to me you conceive of as overzealous pro-harmony efforts, but with that attitude I have no guarantee that you won’t push for strife even further. Even with the talk of balances and all.
Ironically enough, I do think that LW is pretty balanced in that regard (with some outliers, of course), so on the surface, I agree that downvotes shouldn’t be having a great emotional impact on a reasonably stable individual. It’s the attitude that begets disapproval, not the facts as they now stand. You’ll still be more comfortable with trolling rather than with sensitivity even after this bout of excess sensitivity might have passed or been successfully countered.
There are 1) better and 2) enough venues for getting acquainted with the harsher realities of the world. Why would anyone try to make more of them out of milder spaces is beyond me. But I suppose conflict is another one of those acquired tastes.
On the topic of negative feedback:
If someone calling you an idiot makes you go curl up in the corner and never ever try anything like what you did again, well, either you need therapy or you need to HTFU.
This line right here illustrates the belief that the dignified way to deal with mean-spirited criticism is never to internalise it; presumably to have / express a low opinion on the criticiser right back? Criticism, in order to serve some useful purpose besides just creating tension between people, has to be listened to, otherwise it’s just a pointless battle between my pride and yours. Who knows, maybe the person really is an idiot who should never ever try anything like he/she did again. If the local culture has it that that option is never even up for consideration, every attempt at criticism will just result in a lot of pointless bickering. If we’re being realistic rather than either sensitive or prideful, and want criticism to function properly as negative feedback, then we want bad posters to maybe consider a defanged version of “they’re being idiots”, but without feeling like they’ve made a new enemy. Then it’s the criticiser’s responsibility to deliver the criticism in a manner that maximises the signal and minimises the noise. I.e. no pointless hostility.
Interestingly, there’s a forum I hang out around that has this same philosophy of thick-skinnedness. It has upvotes but no downvotes, and this was a conscious decision by the admins—because they knew everyone would be downvoting left, right, and centre. A signal of appreciation was more, let’s say, signal-y than one of dislike, for them. It’s been working like a charm for years and years.
Ah, a vote in favour of strife. Yes, that’s what it is.
Nope, that’s what it is not.
That specific comment is really not about LW voting system at all, it’s about people’s ability to take criticism (of various sorts including totally unfair one) and the usefulness of such an ability.
What to promote? Harmony, or strife?
Still nope, even in the context of LW karma that’s the wrong framework. Negative feedback is not strife—if you screwed up and no one will tell you so because it’s not nice, you will continue to screw up until reality delivers the message to you. Feedback and consequences is a much more useful set of terms to use.
It’s the attitude that begets disapproval
LOL. Would you like to… adjust my attitude? X-D
the belief that the dignified way to deal with mean-spirited criticism is never to internalise it; presumably to have / express a low opinion on the criticiser right back?
You’re missing a very important part: distinguishing between the criticism of an idea or a proposal, and the criticism of a person.
You should listen and pay attention to the criticism of your ideas. You should not interpret the criticism of your ideas as criticism of your self/identity/personality/soul/etc.
Ah, a vote in favour of strife. Yes, that’s what it is. If you start off from the premise of a world full of unfair, mean, nasty people, you do still have the choice of either adapting by joining their ranks, or ensuring that the patch of reality you control remains well-defended from the corruption. This is a very useful matter to conceive of in terms of tendencies. What to promote? Harmony, or strife? You’re pushing for more strife now in what seems to me you conceive of as overzealous pro-harmony efforts, but with that attitude I have no guarantee that you won’t push for strife even further. Even with the talk of balances and all.
Ironically enough, I do think that LW is pretty balanced in that regard (with some outliers, of course), so on the surface, I agree that downvotes shouldn’t be having a great emotional impact on a reasonably stable individual. It’s the attitude that begets disapproval, not the facts as they now stand. You’ll still be more comfortable with trolling rather than with sensitivity even after this bout of excess sensitivity might have passed or been successfully countered.
There are 1) better and 2) enough venues for getting acquainted with the harsher realities of the world. Why would anyone try to make more of them out of milder spaces is beyond me. But I suppose conflict is another one of those acquired tastes.
On the topic of negative feedback:
This line right here illustrates the belief that the dignified way to deal with mean-spirited criticism is never to internalise it; presumably to have / express a low opinion on the criticiser right back? Criticism, in order to serve some useful purpose besides just creating tension between people, has to be listened to, otherwise it’s just a pointless battle between my pride and yours. Who knows, maybe the person really is an idiot who should never ever try anything like he/she did again. If the local culture has it that that option is never even up for consideration, every attempt at criticism will just result in a lot of pointless bickering. If we’re being realistic rather than either sensitive or prideful, and want criticism to function properly as negative feedback, then we want bad posters to maybe consider a defanged version of “they’re being idiots”, but without feeling like they’ve made a new enemy. Then it’s the criticiser’s responsibility to deliver the criticism in a manner that maximises the signal and minimises the noise. I.e. no pointless hostility.
Interestingly, there’s a forum I hang out around that has this same philosophy of thick-skinnedness. It has upvotes but no downvotes, and this was a conscious decision by the admins—because they knew everyone would be downvoting left, right, and centre. A signal of appreciation was more, let’s say, signal-y than one of dislike, for them. It’s been working like a charm for years and years.
Nope, that’s what it is not.
That specific comment is really not about LW voting system at all, it’s about people’s ability to take criticism (of various sorts including totally unfair one) and the usefulness of such an ability.
Still nope, even in the context of LW karma that’s the wrong framework. Negative feedback is not strife—if you screwed up and no one will tell you so because it’s not nice, you will continue to screw up until reality delivers the message to you. Feedback and consequences is a much more useful set of terms to use.
LOL. Would you like to… adjust my attitude? X-D
You’re missing a very important part: distinguishing between the criticism of an idea or a proposal, and the criticism of a person.
You should listen and pay attention to the criticism of your ideas. You should not interpret the criticism of your ideas as criticism of your self/identity/personality/soul/etc.