Doesn't it serve you too?
The only times I downvote are when I think the poster is being deliberately rude or cruel, but I don't like doing that and would rather have a moderator take care of what I see as a dirty job. And unless a post is exceptionally uninteresting, I upvote posts simply as a way of keeping track of those I've already read. So no, it doesn't serve me very well, and the use I make of it is not conductive to prOtherwise, I don't use it, because I'm not interested in punishing posts simply because I don't enjoy seeing them here. I do reward posts that teach me something I didn't know.oper feedback. When I really like what someone does, I go and tell them. When I really don't like it, I tell them. The threshold of like is smaller than that of dislike. All in all, I'd be happier and more comfortable if the upvote-downvote system didn't exist, and the threads were linear rather than in trees.
and insofar as that correlates to quality you get a sense of how to make quality comments
That's a pretty big if; one poster's quality standards may be very different from another, and may not deserve to be called "quality" standards at all. In fact, they might be downright contemptible. If people disapprove of me for unworthy reasons, I do not want them to hold power over me.
and I don't see why it's necessarily better that people spend their time responding in ways that are good for YOU instead of good for them.
When you downvote, you're merely pushing away stuff you don't like. When you tell people what is wrong, they'll be quicker and more effective at correcting what they do. Said people will also propose reasons for or against stuff that are actually avowable in public, which gives a better guarantee that those reasons be good rather than petty.
And since that's a lot of trouble, I honestly prefer systems where there are a few moderators and some very strict rules of conduct, and people who misbehave are swiftly punished according to those rules. Giant In The Playground are fora that have formalized this very well IMHO, and the contents in there may not always be thrilling and excellent, but they are never bad, because bad stuff gets punished, and the punishments are always explained and justified.
I honestly prefer systems where there are a few moderators and some very strict rules of conduct, and people who misbehave are swiftly punished according to those rules. Giant In The Playground are fora that have formalized this very well IMHO, and the contents in there may not always be thrilling and excellent, but they are never bad, because bad stuff gets punished, and the punishments are always explained and justified.
As a reference point: when someone pseudo-stalked me on the GitP fora back in the day, I spoke to a mod, who applied straightforward algorithms to the situation, added up points, and banned the offender. It worked very well, at least within the context of the site.
This is my first attempt at starting a casual conversation on LW where people don't have to worry about winning or losing points, and can just relax and have social fun together.
So, Big Bang Theory. That series got me wondering. It seems to be about "geeks", and not the basement-dwelling variety either; they're highly successful and accomplished professionals, each in their own field. One of them has been an astronaut, even. And yet, everything they ever accomplish amounts to absolutely nothing in terms of social recognition or even in terms of personal happiness. And the thing is, it doesn't even get better for their "normal" counterparts, who are just as miserable and petty.
Consider, then; how would being rationalists would affect the characters on this show? The writing of the show relies a lot on laughing at people rather than with them; would rationalist characters subvert that? And how would that rationalist outlook express itself given their personalities? (After all, notice how amazingly different from each other Yudkowsky, Hanson, and Alicorn are, just to name a few; they emphasize rather different things, and take different approaches to both truth-testing and problem-solving).
Note: this discussion does not need to be about rationalism. It can be a casual, normal discussion about the series. Relax and enjoy yourselves.
But the reason I brought up that series is that its characters are excellent examples of high intelligence hampered by immense irrationality. The apex of this is represented by Dr. Sheldon Cooper, who is, essentially, a complete fundamentalist over every single thing in his life; he applies this attitude to everything, right down to people's favorite flavor of pudding: Raj is "axiomatically wrong" to prefer tapioca, because the best pudding is chocolate. Period. This attitude makes him a far, far worse scientist than he thinks, as he refuses to even consider any criticism of his methods or results.