Let’s say I write something so insipid and worthless that it’s worth every downvote on the site… and then a better-quality poster writes an excellent point-by-point take-down of it and gets tons of upvotes for it.
You have motivated the better poster to write an excellent post.
If you original post was really insipid and useless it would just be ignored. Capable people rarely waste effort on refuting truly worthless stuff.
Not very. Note my hedging in mentioning “capable” people :-)
I think that in the short term there is the incentive to pile onto the stupid post and shred it to bits. But the bloom on this flower fades very rapidly. Smart people tend to realize that it’s not a good use of their time.
Contrast this to a nonstupid but controversial position which motivates someone to write an excellent piece—for an example consider Yvain’s anti-neoreactionary FAQ.
You have motivated the better poster to write an excellent post.
If you original post was really insipid and useless it would just be ignored. Capable people rarely waste effort on refuting truly worthless stuff.
How confident of that are you?
Not very. Note my hedging in mentioning “capable” people :-)
I think that in the short term there is the incentive to pile onto the stupid post and shred it to bits. But the bloom on this flower fades very rapidly. Smart people tend to realize that it’s not a good use of their time.
Contrast this to a nonstupid but controversial position which motivates someone to write an excellent piece—for an example consider Yvain’s anti-neoreactionary FAQ.