I don’t like this comment, and now I’m conflicted about how to deal with that.
Arguments? Tell me why Karma isn’t a mind killer. Your comment makes me conclude that you would have usually just downvoted my comment to signal that you don’t agree but since I especially asked for as many downvotes as possible that option is gone.
Karma just doesn’t work in a lot of cases. People are not superhuman AGI’s who can infer what is wrong with their submission by a mere vote. Voting will just cause them to shut up about what they really think. In a few cases someone might conclude that the more intelligent and rational collective intelligence of LW decided that their submission is wrong and subsequently think about what is wrong. But in the long run, and for everyone who doesn’t think like that, Karma will just create an echo chamber or at the very least a place where being political correct is much more important than being honest.
Well, first of all, it’s “politically correct”, not “political correct” and “karma” isn’t a proper noun. Second, even if you were typing the correct phrase, that’s not what it means; political correctness has a meaning that doesn’t involve any reference to toeing the Less Wrong party line.
Ignoring the surface characteristics of the comment, karma doesn’t control ideology. (If it did, I couldn’t be a loud deontologist and come in third on the entire blog, as one salient example. In fact, most of my comments professing deontology have been upvoted.) Well-presented and polite nontrollish comments arguing for nearly any position can score positively. Karma is a control mechanism for topicality, tone, tidiness, visible good faith, etc. People sometimes vote for agreement, but there are enough people here that it usually comes out in the wash, and the phenomenon is dramatically less likely to bury a comment that is written kindly than one that’s aggressive or snide.
...And since the benefits of karma have already received attention ad nauseum all over the site, I didn’t want to spend those minutes on this redundant comment, but you rendered valueless my other mechanism of disapproval.
And since the benefits of karma have already received attention ad nauseum all over the site...
Reputation systems work, no doubt. The effects might be desirable, or feel desirable. But I don’t see that being the case for communities where honesty, skepticism and general openness should play a large role. There is a problem in judging the effectiveness of reputation systems from the inside, especially if you are one of the trend-setters. You might perceive everyone to be on topic and polite, their submissions to be well-thought-out. The reason for that perception might be the reputation system but that doesn’t make it true that it also caused people to be honest and less wrong.
If it did, I couldn’t be a loud deontologist and come in third on the entire blog, as one salient example. In fact, most of my comments professing deontology have been upvoted.
First of all, you are a little star here due to your fiction. People follow your submissions directly, mostly people who already agree with you or like your fiction. A lot of comments will receive upvotes due to special interest groups while many who would disagree won’t even read it or don’t care to downvote them. What you said is no evidence of the success of the karma system.
What I am trying to say is that reputation systems can alter the territory to fit the map. Reputation systems are augmented reality layers for beliefs.
First of all, you are a little star here due to your fiction. People follow your submissions directly, mostly people who already agree with you or like your fiction.
Um, what? Setting aside the cutesy pseudocompliment “little star”, I started Luminosity last summer. I was already third on the top contributors list before that, if I recall correctly, and the fiction I was doing before Luminosity was and remains obscure and unpopular, received and continues to receive approximately no attention on LW, etc.
Arguments? Tell me why Karma isn’t a mind killer. Your comment makes me conclude that you would have usually just downvoted my comment to signal that you don’t agree but since I especially asked for as many downvotes as possible that option is gone.
Karma just doesn’t work in a lot of cases. People are not superhuman AGI’s who can infer what is wrong with their submission by a mere vote. Voting will just cause them to shut up about what they really think. In a few cases someone might conclude that the more intelligent and rational collective intelligence of LW decided that their submission is wrong and subsequently think about what is wrong. But in the long run, and for everyone who doesn’t think like that, Karma will just create an echo chamber or at the very least a place where being political correct is much more important than being honest.
Well, first of all, it’s “politically correct”, not “political correct” and “karma” isn’t a proper noun. Second, even if you were typing the correct phrase, that’s not what it means; political correctness has a meaning that doesn’t involve any reference to toeing the Less Wrong party line.
Ignoring the surface characteristics of the comment, karma doesn’t control ideology. (If it did, I couldn’t be a loud deontologist and come in third on the entire blog, as one salient example. In fact, most of my comments professing deontology have been upvoted.) Well-presented and polite nontrollish comments arguing for nearly any position can score positively. Karma is a control mechanism for topicality, tone, tidiness, visible good faith, etc. People sometimes vote for agreement, but there are enough people here that it usually comes out in the wash, and the phenomenon is dramatically less likely to bury a comment that is written kindly than one that’s aggressive or snide.
...And since the benefits of karma have already received attention ad nauseum all over the site, I didn’t want to spend those minutes on this redundant comment, but you rendered valueless my other mechanism of disapproval.
Thanks for the English lesson.
Reputation systems work, no doubt. The effects might be desirable, or feel desirable. But I don’t see that being the case for communities where honesty, skepticism and general openness should play a large role. There is a problem in judging the effectiveness of reputation systems from the inside, especially if you are one of the trend-setters. You might perceive everyone to be on topic and polite, their submissions to be well-thought-out. The reason for that perception might be the reputation system but that doesn’t make it true that it also caused people to be honest and less wrong.
First of all, you are a little star here due to your fiction. People follow your submissions directly, mostly people who already agree with you or like your fiction. A lot of comments will receive upvotes due to special interest groups while many who would disagree won’t even read it or don’t care to downvote them. What you said is no evidence of the success of the karma system.
What I am trying to say is that reputation systems can alter the territory to fit the map. Reputation systems are augmented reality layers for beliefs.
Um, what? Setting aside the cutesy pseudocompliment “little star”, I started Luminosity last summer. I was already third on the top contributors list before that, if I recall correctly, and the fiction I was doing before Luminosity was and remains obscure and unpopular, received and continues to receive approximately no attention on LW, etc.
I have a video on the virtues of reputation systems: Universal karma.