= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Meta: social influence bias and the karma system - 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 (15)
Let's say I read a post that's math heavy. I don't understand all the math but otherwise the post seems great.
Do I upvote the post?
If the post has 100% upvotes with 3 total votes I will probably upvote. If the post has 100% downvotes with 3 total votes I won't upvote because it probably means that there's an error in the math that I don't see because my math background isn't as strong as the math background of some other people on LW.
Did the upvotes or downvotes biased me in a negative way just because I changed my behavior? I don't think so. It provided meaningful information on which I made my decision.
But the point of voting is for you to be a provider of information, not to be a consumer of information. If your vote is simply reflecting the information content already available from the other votes, what have you added? Put in LW terms, your vote should entangled with information unique to you. If the only information it is entangled with is other votes, then you're just perpetuating an information cascade. This isn't Hollywood Squares. The point of voting isn't to "win". It's not to pat yourself on the back for upvoting useful posts. It's to provide people with useful information about whether the post is useful. When you're deciding whether to upvote, you shouldn't be asking "Do I think this post is useful?", but "Is this post, given the current vote total more likely to be useful than other posts with the same post total?"