Comment author: DanArmak 03 October 2015 03:08:52PM 3 points [-]

You seem to be assuming commenters either agree or disagree with a post. But usually there are more than just two opposite or pro/con positions, and many more things to say on a subject than "yes" or "no". Many posts aren't arguing for or against something to begin with, they're describing, reporting, or asking something.

Also, did you use the total number of comments on a post, or just the top-level comments? The former would count many extended discussions that often have little to do with the OP.

Comment author: cleonid 03 October 2015 09:04:46PM 1 point [-]

The former would count many extended discussions that often have little to do with the OP.

Is there a reason to think that the number of extended discussions that have little to do with the OP is higher for articles with negative karma? If not, counting the total number or just the top-level comments should not affect the conclusions.

there are more than just two opposite or pro/con positions, and many more things to say on a subject than "yes" or "no"

Solving the problem for a simple binary case is a starting point in our tests.

Experiment: Changing minds vs. preaching to the choir

13 cleonid 03 October 2015 11:27AM

 

      1. Problem

In the market economy production is driven by monetary incentives – higher reward for an economic activity makes more people willing to engage in it. Internet forums follow the same principle but with a different currency - instead of money the main incentive of internet commenters is the reaction of their audience. A strong reaction expressed by a large number of replies or “likes” encourages commenters to increase their output. Its absence motivates them to quit posting or change their writing style.

On neutral topics, using audience reaction as an incentive works reasonably well: attention focuses on the most interesting or entertaining comments. However, on partisan issues, such incentives become counterproductive. Political forums and newspaper comment sections demonstrate the same patterns:



  • The easiest way to maximize “likes” for a given amount of effort is by posting an emotionally charged comment which appeals to audience’s biases (“preaching to the choir”).

 

  • The easiest way to maximize the number of replies is by posting a low quality comment that goes against audience’s biases (“trolling”).

 

  • Both effects are amplified when the website places comments with most replies or “likes” at the top of the page.

 

The problem is not restricted to low-brow political forums. The following graph, which shows the average number of comments as a function of an article’s karma, was generated from the Lesswrong data.

 

The data suggests that the easiest way to maximize the number of replies is to write posts that are disliked by most readers. For instance, articles with the karma of -1 on average generate twice as many comments (20.1±3.4) as articles with the karma of +1 (9.3±0.8).


2. Technical Solution

Enabling constructive discussion between people with different ideologies requires reversing the incentives – people need to be motivated to write posts that sound persuasive to the opposite side rather than to their own supporters.

We suggest addressing this problem that this problem by changing the voting system. In brief, instead of votes from all readers, comment ratings and position on the page should be based on votes from the opposite side only. For example, in the debate on minimum wage, for arguments against minimum wage only the upvotes of minimum wage supporters would be counted and vice versa.

The new voting system can simultaneously achieve several objectives:

·         eliminate incentives for preaching to the choir

·         give posters a more objective feedback on the impact of their contributions, helping them improve their writing style

·     focus readers’ attention on comments most likely to change their minds instead of inciting comments that provoke an irrational defensive reaction.

3. Testing

If you are interested in measuring and improving your persuasive skills and would like to help others to do the same, you are invited to take part in the following experiment:

 

Step I. Submit Pro or Con arguments on any of the following topics (up to 3 arguments in total):

     Should the government give all parents vouchers for private school tuition?

     Should developed countries increase the number of immigrants they receive?

     Should there be a government mandated minimum wage?

 

Step II. For each argument you have submitted, rate 15 arguments submitted by others.

 

Step III.  Participants will be emailed the results of the experiment including:

-         ratings their arguments receive from different reviewer groups (supporters, opponents and neutrals)

-         the list of the most persuasive Pro & Con arguments on each topic (i.e. arguments that received the highest ratings from opposing and neutral groups)

-         rating distribution in each group

 

Step IV (optional). If interested, sign up for the next round.

 

The experiment will help us test the effectiveness of the new voting system and develop the best format for its application.


 

 

 

 

Comment author: cleonid 28 September 2015 11:45:16AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: cleonid 14 September 2015 11:28:12AM *  4 points [-]
Comment author: cleonid 07 September 2015 12:27:49AM 4 points [-]
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 August 2015 02:06:07PM 0 points [-]

Ashkenazi Jews is too large a category. Try Ashkenazi Jews from a region where Tay Sachs is common for all the grandparents.

Comment author: cleonid 25 August 2015 03:22:23PM 1 point [-]

I don’t think this is possible.

Tay-Sachs allele used to slightly increase evolutionary fitness in heterozygotes (i.e. people who carry just one Tay-Sachs allele). This allowed the allele to increase in frequency until ~3% of Ashkenazis became its carriers. But once the local frequency becomes high enough the negative effects (the risk that a random couple produces children with two Tay-Sachs alleles) balance the positive effects on fitness. Thus in any region it should be impossible for Tay-Sachs to be common for all the grandparents.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 August 2015 06:03:02AM 0 points [-]

Why wouldn't having grandparents from different continents make rare alleles less likely to be reinforced?

Comment author: cleonid 25 August 2015 12:48:56PM 1 point [-]

There is some reinforcement, but it’s not very significant.

For example, consider an Ashkenazi Tay-Sachs carrier who marries a person from China. If their children mate, the chance that the grandchildren would have Tay-Sachs disease is (1/2)^4=1/16. If instead of a Chinese, this Ashkenazi Tay-Sachs carrier marries another Ashkenazi (who have ~0.03 chance of being a carrier), the chance that the grandchildren would have Tay-Sachs disease is almost the same, ~1/16*1.12. In absence of incest, a grandchild of a Tay-Sachs carrier would have a ~0.03/8 (i.e. ~17 times smaller) chance for getting the disease.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Open Thread - Aug 24 - Aug 30
Comment author: NancyLebovitz 24 August 2015 04:17:33PM 0 points [-]

From what I've heard, the genetic risks have a lot to do with how genetically similar the forebears of the couple are. If all the grandparents are from the same small region, it's a lot riskier than if the grandparents are from different continents.

Comment author: cleonid 24 August 2015 09:33:07PM 1 point [-]

I don’t understand why the origin of grandparents should matter.

To the best of my knowledge, the main problem with incest is recessive alleles. For example, if the grandfather’s genotype is ”aA” (where “a” is a very rare recessive allele) and his children (parents’ generation) mate with each other, then there is a relatively high chance (1/16) that the grandchildren would be of “aa” genotype (which might be extremely deleterious or even lethal). Having another grandparent from a different continent should not change this.

Comment author: cleonid 24 August 2015 08:23:30AM 6 points [-]
Comment author: cleonid 03 August 2015 08:48:40AM 2 points [-]

View more: Prev | Next