I’m not trying to be cruel, but this appears to be your first post and I thought you might like to know why I voted it down, rather than be left wondering about the nebulous community disapproval.
MBTI is pretty much pseudoscience. Seriously, it’s a half-step up from horoscopes, in that it at least asks questions that might have something to do with personality. Except for the intraversion/extraversion axis (which has a more scientific version in the Big Five tests), I’ve always found it less than useless, remain appalled that it retains as much following as it has, and thus have trouble taking you seriously when you go on about it.
I’ve personally gotten a lot more utility out of Magic: The Gathering colors or Hogwarts houses (which are probably based on the equally bogus ancient four-humor theory: sanguine, melancholy, choleric, and phlegmatic) as theories of personality, but at least they don’t claim to be scientific.
Never heard of “Spiral Dynamics”, but if it’s mentioned in the same breath as MBTI, I’m probably not interested.
If you really want to contribute meaningfully on this forum, read The Sequences and try to bring yourself up to our standards of epistemic hygiene. This post gives me the impression that you’re not there yet, and further posts in this vein would be a net negative. The multiple downvotes so far indicate some agreement with this take from other readers, and the low score now means that most others won’t bother with it.
yeah, of course I would like to know ;). Throwing negative karma on newcomers, before even asking questions or explaining why doesn’t sound like a good strategy to welcome people. I come with actual interest and goodwill—but from a different culture of epistemic hygiene. I do not believe my way of seeing things is bad, in many regards it is better it seems, but I am curious. And getting downvotes instead of curiousity, is a real bummer.
I did not know there was this much contention about MBTI as there seems to be. Thanks for letting me know.
And it is good to know you did get something out of Magic The Gathering. I haven’t not played much, but I did like the feel of some of the cards. The art is beautiful. And, as you point out, they do not make the claim of being scientific. Which I also never did.
I’m not trying to prove MBTI, or even Spiral Dynamics for that matter. I am using them as reference points to explain how I connect the dots—how I use my mind to understand, view and order information, facts, intuitions and feelings. If you don’t like it, you can take it out of my post, it isn’t like it would make much of a difference. If I am doing something horrible with regards to rationality and logic in general, I would be happy to know. I assume that reading the Sequences might give me some ideas.
So I do not mind learning about The Sequences. And, even though I am happy someone finally made something like a case for their disapproval. I would love to know if there is any other reason people downvote, so if you did, do you mind explaining why? Even just a sentence would be fine, and if you have concrete tips to what I can do to improve—let me know.
What I take from it though is that some people here are very critical towards pseudoscience. Which is fine.
Maybe it is because I am a newcomer, but upvoting and downvoting.. It gives knowledge and posts this feeling of getting a rating on Amazon or something. Isn’t the point of commenting to improve the validity and coherence of posts, to connect different posts together, to share useful points of view, be supportive, give feedback, understanding or simply find something worthwhile reading whilst we hurdle through space? I’ll try to do that, and if it isn’t wanted, that is fine too. I’ll quickly learn if it is a closed society resistent to outside ideas, or an open one, curious and open to incorporating new knowledge and understandings.
Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism. The inferential gap problem is real. Newcomers often really don’t know enough, but we can’t afford to re-hash the basics every time someone new shows up, or we’d never get to the interesting stuff, so when they’re not up to our standards, we really do have to boo them off the stage. Sorry that had to happen to you. Fortunately, we have introductory material. Both of those linked posts are from The Sequences, and there’s a lot more where that came from. It’s pretty long, but you should get a lot out of it long before you finish.
Karma is an imperfect measure, but it’s a lot better than nothing. Everyone who says anything interesting at all will get downvoted sometimes, so expect that. Because most of us use pseudonyms, we can’t know if you’re a real newcomer, a banned user with a new name, a sock puppet of a potential abuser, or just a potential “prolific fool”, so we have to hold everyone to our standards. You seem unusually sincere, so I’ve taken more time to reply than I’d usually bother with, but I can’t rule out the possibility that you’re trolling me, so I think I’ll stop here. Start reading The Sequences. It ought to help prevent the downvotes.
Given that new users don’t produce a significant number of bad posts/comments, I think ~zero karma targeting is currently better for bad posts/comments from new users (unless the post/comment is absolutely horrible or hopeless), it improves the chances that they lurk and learn. But it should go into the negatives when there are more posts/comments by a given user (even more good posts/comments, otherwise the norm is too complicated to channel).
This could get UI support in the form of a new-user badge near the voting buttons with alt-text explaining the welcoming-voting norm.
From your viewpoint, your actions do make sense to me. Since I am sincere, I am still offended, but I am very thankful you took the time to explain what the baseline is.
Now I will have to gather some strength to go on a learning journey, so the long comment will be my last for a while. Then I will have a baseline to compare with.
Again, thanks a lot for taking the time, I appreciate it, and I guess I am sorry I didn’t think about the possibility that even though I view myself as intelligent, that isn’t everything.
I’m not trying to be cruel, but this appears to be your first post and I thought you might like to know why I voted it down, rather than be left wondering about the nebulous community disapproval.
MBTI is pretty much pseudoscience. Seriously, it’s a half-step up from horoscopes, in that it at least asks questions that might have something to do with personality. Except for the intraversion/extraversion axis (which has a more scientific version in the Big Five tests), I’ve always found it less than useless, remain appalled that it retains as much following as it has, and thus have trouble taking you seriously when you go on about it.
I’ve personally gotten a lot more utility out of Magic: The Gathering colors or Hogwarts houses (which are probably based on the equally bogus ancient four-humor theory: sanguine, melancholy, choleric, and phlegmatic) as theories of personality, but at least they don’t claim to be scientific.
Never heard of “Spiral Dynamics”, but if it’s mentioned in the same breath as MBTI, I’m probably not interested.
If you really want to contribute meaningfully on this forum, read The Sequences and try to bring yourself up to our standards of epistemic hygiene. This post gives me the impression that you’re not there yet, and further posts in this vein would be a net negative. The multiple downvotes so far indicate some agreement with this take from other readers, and the low score now means that most others won’t bother with it.
Hello gilch,
yeah, of course I would like to know ;). Throwing negative karma on newcomers, before even asking questions or explaining why doesn’t sound like a good strategy to welcome people. I come with actual interest and goodwill—but from a different culture of epistemic hygiene. I do not believe my way of seeing things is bad, in many regards it is better it seems, but I am curious. And getting downvotes instead of curiousity, is a real bummer.
I did not know there was this much contention about MBTI as there seems to be. Thanks for letting me know.
And it is good to know you did get something out of Magic The Gathering. I haven’t not played much, but I did like the feel of some of the cards. The art is beautiful. And, as you point out, they do not make the claim of being scientific. Which I also never did.
I’m not trying to prove MBTI, or even Spiral Dynamics for that matter. I am using them as reference points to explain how I connect the dots—how I use my mind to understand, view and order information, facts, intuitions and feelings. If you don’t like it, you can take it out of my post, it isn’t like it would make much of a difference. If I am doing something horrible with regards to rationality and logic in general, I would be happy to know. I assume that reading the Sequences might give me some ideas.
So I do not mind learning about The Sequences. And, even though I am happy someone finally made something like a case for their disapproval. I would love to know if there is any other reason people downvote, so if you did, do you mind explaining why? Even just a sentence would be fine, and if you have concrete tips to what I can do to improve—let me know.
What I take from it though is that some people here are very critical towards pseudoscience. Which is fine.
Maybe it is because I am a newcomer, but upvoting and downvoting.. It gives knowledge and posts this feeling of getting a rating on Amazon or something. Isn’t the point of commenting to improve the validity and coherence of posts, to connect different posts together, to share useful points of view, be supportive, give feedback, understanding or simply find something worthwhile reading whilst we hurdle through space?
I’ll try to do that, and if it isn’t wanted, that is fine too. I’ll quickly learn if it is a closed society resistent to outside ideas, or an open one, curious and open to incorporating new knowledge and understandings.
Well-Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism. The inferential gap problem is real. Newcomers often really don’t know enough, but we can’t afford to re-hash the basics every time someone new shows up, or we’d never get to the interesting stuff, so when they’re not up to our standards, we really do have to boo them off the stage. Sorry that had to happen to you. Fortunately, we have introductory material. Both of those linked posts are from The Sequences, and there’s a lot more where that came from. It’s pretty long, but you should get a lot out of it long before you finish.
Karma is an imperfect measure, but it’s a lot better than nothing. Everyone who says anything interesting at all will get downvoted sometimes, so expect that. Because most of us use pseudonyms, we can’t know if you’re a real newcomer, a banned user with a new name, a sock puppet of a potential abuser, or just a potential “prolific fool”, so we have to hold everyone to our standards. You seem unusually sincere, so I’ve taken more time to reply than I’d usually bother with, but I can’t rule out the possibility that you’re trolling me, so I think I’ll stop here. Start reading The Sequences. It ought to help prevent the downvotes.
Given that new users don’t produce a significant number of bad posts/comments, I think ~zero karma targeting is currently better for bad posts/comments from new users (unless the post/comment is absolutely horrible or hopeless), it improves the chances that they lurk and learn. But it should go into the negatives when there are more posts/comments by a given user (even more good posts/comments, otherwise the norm is too complicated to channel).
This could get UI support in the form of a new-user badge near the voting buttons with alt-text explaining the welcoming-voting norm.
Yeah, I will have a look at it.
From your viewpoint, your actions do make sense to me. Since I am sincere, I am still offended, but I am very thankful you took the time to explain what the baseline is.
Now I will have to gather some strength to go on a learning journey, so the long comment will be my last for a while. Then I will have a baseline to compare with.
Again, thanks a lot for taking the time, I appreciate it, and I guess I am sorry I didn’t think about the possibility that even though I view myself as intelligent, that isn’t everything.