= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Meta: Karma and lesswrong mainstream positions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
I've obtained a delta of about +100 karma in this discussion. So this explanation seems wrong.
Fair enough... if that's coming from a small number of highly-ranked comments, that is indeed evidence that a lot of people are interested in the exchange. (If it's a large number of low-ranked comments, it's equally consistent with a small number of people who endorse your engagement in it.)
Thanks for the counterargument.
That seems like an accurate assessment. At present this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/54u/bayesian_epistemology_vs_popper/3uqx is at +8 and this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/54u/bayesian_epistemology_vs_popper/3usd is at +13 but the second comment also got linked to in a separate thread. No other comment of mine in that discussion has upvoted to more than 5. That data combined with your remark above suggests that your initial remark was correct.