= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Adele_L comments on Open Thread, November 23-30, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (295)
I would worry that this would incentivize controversial discussions.
As long as the controversial discussions are up-voted that shouldn't be a problem. Except if you disagree with the classical system of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
Votes in controversial discussions are usually more about signaling than anything else.
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that we cannot infer signal from that.
Human emotions are also primary signals. And nonetheless you can e.g. use perception of shouting (accomanying anger) to locate conflict areas in a social group. In a way karma expenditure is such a shouting and draws attention.
The problem somewhat is that karma is one-dimensional. Each emotion-pair is a dimension and we have no way to signal e.g. happiness, fear, awe, ... Slashdot for example has the funny tag. That could be used.
And entirely different approach would be to vote the votes. But for that the votes would need to be visible. And voting would have to have an associated cost.