While this post is pretty bad, I don’t think it’s bad enough to be at −22 with 0% positive as of this writing. Thus, to denote that it has a small good part, I give it one upvote.
Specifically, the part I find to be pretty good is the observation that it may be impossible to accurately model a human as having one consistent set of preferences (as exemplified by the seeming plausibility of construal level theory), and that this potential impossibility can pose a challenge to utilitarianism as it is classically conceived.
This is an issue with the voting system; I think this deserves a −4 or −5 for muddled thinking. −22 is… excessive.
I’d like the ability to say that something deserves, say, a −5. And then if the current score deviates from that, my vote is applied to bring it closer to that goal number.
Bad posts often get a strong karma hit initially when the most vigilant readers check them and later return towards zero. It is possible (although not likely) that two months from now the post would stand at +2, your vote contributing to the positive score.
I was supposed to check on this a long time ago, but forgot/went inactive on LW, but the post actually ended up at −26, so seemingly slightly lower than it was, which is evidence against your regression to 0 theory.
I feel this is sufficiently improbable that I’m willing to take the risk. That said, you raise a good point, and I’ll make a note to check on this two months from now and see how it turned out (if it’s −5 or higher, I’ll consider my vote to be “wrong”, if it’s −6 or lower, I’ll consider it to have been good).
While this post is pretty bad, I don’t think it’s bad enough to be at −22 with 0% positive as of this writing. Thus, to denote that it has a small good part, I give it one upvote.
Specifically, the part I find to be pretty good is the observation that it may be impossible to accurately model a human as having one consistent set of preferences (as exemplified by the seeming plausibility of construal level theory), and that this potential impossibility can pose a challenge to utilitarianism as it is classically conceived.
This is an issue with the voting system; I think this deserves a −4 or −5 for muddled thinking. −22 is… excessive.
I’d like the ability to say that something deserves, say, a −5. And then if the current score deviates from that, my vote is applied to bring it closer to that goal number.
Bad posts often get a strong karma hit initially when the most vigilant readers check them and later return towards zero. It is possible (although not likely) that two months from now the post would stand at +2, your vote contributing to the positive score.
I was supposed to check on this a long time ago, but forgot/went inactive on LW, but the post actually ended up at −26, so seemingly slightly lower than it was, which is evidence against your regression to 0 theory.
I feel this is sufficiently improbable that I’m willing to take the risk. That said, you raise a good point, and I’ll make a note to check on this two months from now and see how it turned out (if it’s −5 or higher, I’ll consider my vote to be “wrong”, if it’s −6 or lower, I’ll consider it to have been good).