My hypothesis: you're a poor judge of whether people are reading an exchange. (where would you get that data?)

So how does your hypothesis explain that these hypothetical other readers consistently read one statement and disagree with it, and then read another statement disagreeing with the first statement, and disagree with that also?

My hypothesis: you're a poor judge of the quality of your comments and posts.

My hypothesis: You didn't bother checking any data before your knee-jerk response, even though it was a button-click away. Honestly, did you?

If I were merely a poor judge, my sample size is large enough that the correlation would most likely be low or random, not strongly negative.

But instead of a hypothesis, let's give you some objective data. Would you agree that higher-quality posts should generate more discussion?

Here are posts I have made, followed by their voted score, followed by the number of comments.

Media bias, 30, 43 - Mechanics without wrenches, 23, 71 - A note on hypotheticals, 18, 17 - Tell it to someone who doesn't care, 15, 34 - The Machine Learning Personality Test, 15, 27 - Aumann voting; or, How to vote when you're ignorant, 10, 31 - On dollars, utility, and crack cocaine, 8, 97 - Exterminating life is rational, 7, 216 - Marketing rationalism, 7, 54 - Extreme updating: The devil is in the missing details, 6, 16 - Calibration fail, 5, 36. - Chomsky on reason and science, 5, 6 - Is masochism necessary?, 4, 123 - You can't believe in Bayes, 1, 53 - Average utilitarianism must be correct?, 1, 111 - Rationalists lose when others choose, 0, 52 - Homogeneity vs. heterogeneity, 0, 77

Correlation coefficient = -.23

Linear regression slope = -1.4