benelliott comments on Costs and Benefits of Scholarship - Less Wrong

40 Post author: lukeprog 22 March 2011 02:19AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: benelliott 23 March 2011 04:12:33PM 5 points [-]

The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)

Does this happen? I think my behaviour is actually the opposite, I sometimes upvote comments that I think have been downvoted unfairly even though I probably wouldn't consider them worth an upvote otherwise.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 23 March 2011 04:55:23PM 2 points [-]

Does this happen?

It would be startling if conformity bias didn't operate here, and I don't see much evidence that it doesn't.

That said, I don't think these are mutually exclusive. I often upvote after (IMO) unearned downvotes, and sometimes downvote after unearned upvotes, but that doesn't mean I'm not subject to the bandwagon effect.

Comment author: Perplexed 23 March 2011 04:29:47PM 1 point [-]

The bandwagon effect is real, I think. My own behavior is to pay particular attention to heavily upvoted or downvoted comments to see if I can see the reason for the excitement. If I can't find a reason, I will often vote the opposite way, as you do. But I usually find the reason. And then I can't resist adding my voice to the crowd's.

Comment author: [deleted] 23 March 2011 06:35:30PM 1 point [-]

And since the upvoting and downvoting is silent and anonymous, the reasons for it should and I think do(#) tend to resemble the reasons of democratic voting, which reasons were discussed in Bryan Caplan's Myth of the Rational Voter - the point of the book being that the reasons tend to be irrational. The result is a phenomenon that is overall irrational, with occasional exceptions.

Granted, it might not be much of an improvement if voters had to add an explanation, since humans are nothing if not fantastic rationalizers.

(#) I say I think, because since the voting is silent and anonymous, no one but the voters can actually know, so anyone else is forced to come up with a hypothesis which fits the voting pattern.