I have also been block-downvoted a bit (at least it looked that way). And it doesn’t feel good. No doubt. But it doesn’t pay rent to cry over it.
The voting mechanism is a technical means to heavily structure transactions of influence, status and visibilty. It is comparable to money or the ability to use a phone. Sure. These do not stand in isolation. The technical means are used in conjunction with social norms and customs. But you can’t expect people to not (try to) use the means available. And some technical means are just not easily policed by social norms.
The options are: Change the norms, change the technology (or both) or—e.g. if both don’t pay off—accept that this combination has failed (or doomed to do so ultimately).
A lot of people on LW seem to feel it’s a problem that we don’t talk much about our feelings on this site. It does seem like a rationality-conducive community should do a whole lot of talking about feelings without reducing them all to ‘here’s a True preference I fully approve of and shall optimize for’ and ‘here’s an evil bad feeling I will expunge’. Responding to ‘mass downvoting feels pretty terrible’ with ‘well, that’s a feeling, feelings aren’t relevant’ or “it doesn’t pay rent to cry over it” doesn’t seem conducive to that goal.
Hm, yes. I agree with this analysis. I focussed too much on the technicality of the voting mechanism which is a kind of inhumane given. Crying about a social norm become technical reality doesn’t help. But saying ‘get over it’ do the underlying issue justice either. I should have taken the feelings more seriously.
Glad we agree. This is in large part a tone issue. It’s still reasonable to ask why someone thinks the existence of feeling X supports policy decision Y; I think that can be done without sounding dismissive.
I have also been block-downvoted a bit (at least it looked that way). And it doesn’t feel good. No doubt. But it doesn’t pay rent to cry over it.
The voting mechanism is a technical means to heavily structure transactions of influence, status and visibilty. It is comparable to money or the ability to use a phone. Sure. These do not stand in isolation. The technical means are used in conjunction with social norms and customs. But you can’t expect people to not (try to) use the means available. And some technical means are just not easily policed by social norms.
The options are: Change the norms, change the technology (or both) or—e.g. if both don’t pay off—accept that this combination has failed (or doomed to do so ultimately).
A lot of people on LW seem to feel it’s a problem that we don’t talk much about our feelings on this site. It does seem like a rationality-conducive community should do a whole lot of talking about feelings without reducing them all to ‘here’s a True preference I fully approve of and shall optimize for’ and ‘here’s an evil bad feeling I will expunge’. Responding to ‘mass downvoting feels pretty terrible’ with ‘well, that’s a feeling, feelings aren’t relevant’ or “it doesn’t pay rent to cry over it” doesn’t seem conducive to that goal.
Hm, yes. I agree with this analysis. I focussed too much on the technicality of the voting mechanism which is a kind of inhumane given. Crying about a social norm become technical reality doesn’t help. But saying ‘get over it’ do the underlying issue justice either. I should have taken the feelings more seriously.
Glad we agree. This is in large part a tone issue. It’s still reasonable to ask why someone thinks the existence of feeling X supports policy decision Y; I think that can be done without sounding dismissive.