“I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.” It is; I think this encapsulates exactly why it’s a good thing that you didn’t downvote the post yourself; a cursory reading is not sufficient to tell you whether the analogy contains insights, etc. You have no obligation to downvote or read the post. The problem is when people make instinctive judgments for reasons they couldn’t articulate at the time of making them, and then downvote on the basis of said judgments. Also, the same could be said of upvotes, though I think it matters less.
“But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right?”
Not unless you cast a vote. If you do, then in my opinion you should at least have allowed the reasons why to coalesce into sufficiently sharp focus that you could explain why.
“They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something”
It’s something negative from my perspective, because they effectively censored the idea which I still think is correct, without changing my mind. So to me, they drowned out a useful, true idea. A debate would be far more productive.
“Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos” I would like to know where these are, so I can fix them.
“to make your sentences enjoyable to read” If that becomes the objective function of writing, then Goodhart’s law might make truth and logical coherence almost irrelevant.
(Clarification: I meant ‘irrelevant as criteria which are actually employed when writing’ , not irrelevant overall. )
I am completely against using arguments that way, however I think it should be possible to avoid that particular ‘basin of attraction’ without sacrificing the possibility of debate (or even of frequent debate).
Edit: upon reflection, there are probably exceptional situations in which I would endorse using arguments as soldiers, but I don’t think they’re at all likely to arise here very often.
“I am sorry, I would like to engage on giving you detailed feedback but I am not really able to do that, because I have other things I need to do with my time. I hope that is understandable.” It is; I think this encapsulates exactly why it’s a good thing that you didn’t downvote the post yourself; a cursory reading is not sufficient to tell you whether the analogy contains insights, etc. You have no obligation to downvote or read the post. The problem is when people make instinctive judgments for reasons they couldn’t articulate at the time of making them, and then downvote on the basis of said judgments. Also, the same could be said of upvotes, though I think it matters less.
“But I’m not able to provide detailed notes like a lecturer on every post that I don’t like, and no-one else on LessWrong is obligated to do so either, right?”
Not unless you cast a vote. If you do, then in my opinion you should at least have allowed the reasons why to coalesce into sufficiently sharp focus that you could explain why.
“They engaged with it enough to either up-or-downvote it, and that’s something”
It’s something negative from my perspective, because they effectively censored the idea which I still think is correct, without changing my mind. So to me, they drowned out a useful, true idea. A debate would be far more productive.
“Showing that you respect me enough as a reader to spare me from typos” I would like to know where these are, so I can fix them.
“to make your sentences enjoyable to read” If that becomes the objective function of writing, then Goodhart’s law might make truth and logical coherence almost irrelevant.
(Clarification: I meant ‘irrelevant as criteria which are actually employed when writing’ , not irrelevant overall. )
https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers I think you should consider what would happen to this website if it functioned the way you desire, without judgment on quality of writing.
I am completely against using arguments that way, however I think it should be possible to avoid that particular ‘basin of attraction’ without sacrificing the possibility of debate (or even of frequent debate).
Edit: upon reflection, there are probably exceptional situations in which I would endorse using arguments as soldiers, but I don’t think they’re at all likely to arise here very often.