Huh, I wonder why this post currently has negative karma. I’ve been conditioned as much as anyone to be critical of anything diegocaleiro writes, because it tends to be long-winded, unclear and poorly formatted, but this post is a welcome departure from this pattern, being clear, concise and to the point:
it starts with a short exercise,
uses it to identify a cognitive bias (seems like a new one to me, something along the lines of “missing the hump”),
suggests a course of action to mitigate it,
gives an example of applying the action,
analyzes other relevant examples,
has an inspirational conclusion.
That’s the type of articles I would like to see in Main.
Thanks for using manual mode (Joshua Greene) or slow mode (Kahneman) to interpret this writing instead of sticking with your initial emotional reaction. It must have required a lot of attention.
I noticed a pattern in my posts (then I tested my hypothesis and confirmed it). I start being downvoted, mostly the hardcore crowd I presume, or people who agree with your assessment of some of my previous posts. If I go under threshold, I ask people to read it (in Brazil or in facebook), they upvote me back. Then in the long run I get upvoted, frequently with a low percentage.
To test if all upvotes were from brazilians I specifically told people to keep below a number for a post, so any ups beyond that point would surely been from elsewhere. In the beggining it was more of the same, downvoted, then upvoted to that limit. And as I predicted, quite a few upvotes after the stabilizing point (when no one else was upvoting because I asked them to read)
I do, however, know what to make of this shminux comment (as opposed to my other response to it). When optimizing for upvotes, follow the six suggestions above.
Huh, I wonder why this post currently has negative karma. I’ve been conditioned as much as anyone to be critical of anything diegocaleiro writes, because it tends to be long-winded, unclear and poorly formatted, but this post is a welcome departure from this pattern, being clear, concise and to the point:
it starts with a short exercise,
uses it to identify a cognitive bias (seems like a new one to me, something along the lines of “missing the hump”),
suggests a course of action to mitigate it,
gives an example of applying the action,
analyzes other relevant examples,
has an inspirational conclusion.
That’s the type of articles I would like to see in Main.
Thanks for using manual mode (Joshua Greene) or slow mode (Kahneman) to interpret this writing instead of sticking with your initial emotional reaction. It must have required a lot of attention.
I noticed a pattern in my posts (then I tested my hypothesis and confirmed it). I start being downvoted, mostly the hardcore crowd I presume, or people who agree with your assessment of some of my previous posts. If I go under threshold, I ask people to read it (in Brazil or in facebook), they upvote me back. Then in the long run I get upvoted, frequently with a low percentage.
To test if all upvotes were from brazilians I specifically told people to keep below a number for a post, so any ups beyond that point would surely been from elsewhere. In the beggining it was more of the same, downvoted, then upvoted to that limit. And as I predicted, quite a few upvotes after the stabilizing point (when no one else was upvoting because I asked them to read)
I don’t know what to make of that.
I do, however, know what to make of this shminux comment (as opposed to my other response to it). When optimizing for upvotes, follow the six suggestions above.
Maybe test a fake profile every now and then.