= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
when was the last time you skipped an article, comment or post because it was negative? (not that you are a typical user) (and maybe this is worthy of a poll in the OT)
This seems reasonable in general, aside from that minor quibble.
As one anecdata point, I do generally skip articles with much negative karma. I read via RSS, so I just hit 'mark read' on them. LW users are not big downvoters, most of the time, so if something has more than a few downvotes, I have found that I probably don't want to read it.
And of course, comments with a score of -3 are hidden by default, so many people probably don't read them.
Regarding "Less Wrong council" and StackOverflow...
What about meta.lesswrong.com? :P a LW to talk about LW? Or are we already meta enough...
Even if we are already meta enough, I think a meta subreddit is a great idea. Giving a particular topic a specialized and dedicated location does serve to promote that topic, but it can also serve to remove it from more general locations, especially if that is requested or enforced, which can be a feature. (For example, discussion of stackoverflow is not allowed on stackoverflow; it is relegated to meta where people who don't want it can ignore it.)
Anything that makes upvoting/downvoting more tedious would just discourage it.
It could be implemented in a way that doesn't make it more tedious.
For example, the first click could be upvote or downvote. The vote would be counted, and it would display a list of additional icons (different lists for upvotes and downvotes). The optional second click could choose one of those icons. But even if you skip the second step, your vote still counts; the second click can only add more "flavor". If many people click the same secondary icon, it will be displayed next to the comment karma.
So before voting the icons would be like: (of course, pictures instead of words)
[upvote] [downvote]
And after clicking on "upvote", the row would change to:
[UPVOTE] [downvote] -- [interesting] [funny] [well-researched] ...
And after clicking on "downvote", the row would change to:
[upvote] [DOWNVOTE] -- [incorrect] [offensive] ...
I think one of the biggest opportunities with this would be to give more weight to votes that come with a reason. (In fact, I'd be tempted to design such a system to silently ignore votes made with no reason -- let the user make them, display them in the interface, just don't use them for anything.)
I would caution away from a bias towards "the current situation seems vaguely bad, therefore Something Must Be Done."
I agree, and I am a firm believer in Don't Do Something, Just Stand There.
One of the things that is perhaps unclear from this post is just how much Standing There has been done; people were talking about this as a problem in 2013, I went from believing that a decline existed and it was okay to believing a decline existed and it wasn't okay in 2014, most of the in-person conversations about this happened in August of this year.
To continue with my theme about the bias towards action, I would note the following. Suppose that one periodically samples a random variable to decide whether the correct action is to leave some situation alone, or to intervene. Assuming that one continues sampling after getting back "do nothing", but that an "intervene" decision is final, it should be clear that "intervene" will always win eventually, if the random variable has even a tiny probability of coming up "intervene", even if the vast majority of the probability mass is on "do nothing".
So in light of that, if one is going to continue to stand around and talk about intervening, one should probably bias further and further away from intervening as time passes, to account for the fact that eventually the coin will come up "intervene" through bad luck no matter what the correct decision is.
In response to
LessWrong 2.0
I would caution away from a bias towards "the current situation seems vaguely bad, therefore Something Must Be Done." There are lots of people still getting use out of LessWrong. I think it would be unfortunate that a bias towards Doing Something over Leaving It Be might cause a valuable resource to be ended without good cause. If the site can be reinvented, great, but if it can't -- don't hit the Big Red Button without honestly weighing the significant costs to the people who are still actively using the site.
(I briefly searched, to see if there's an article on LW about the idea of a bias towards Doing Something. It would of course be essentially the opposite of status quo bias; and yet I think it's a real phenomenon. I certainly feel like I observe it happening in discussions like this. Perhaps the real issue is in the resolution of conflicts between a small minority who are outspoken about Doing Something, and a large silent majority who don't express strong feelings because they're fine with the status quo. This is an attempt to express a thought that I've had percolating, not a criticism of this post.)
The close button on your web browser window will allow you to ignore all posters, but otherwise no; LW has no filtering/blocking features.
I downvoted because, although you did answer the question, I thought the first half of your response was unnecessary snark -- making it sound like you'd prefer the questioner leave the site -- in response to a reasonable question about a feature that many sites do have. (Especially since it's a stupid questions thread.)
In response to
The Mr. Hyde of Oxytocin
Fix the formatting.
To clarify this complaint: It looks like the post was made by copy-and-paste from some word processor, and has picked up some unusual formatting that way. All that formatting should be removed, to make the article match the default formatting of the site.
In response to
Rational discussion of politics
I tried to sign up (same username as LW), but when I try to log in I just get an error.
In response to
Cooperative conversational threading
In large formal groups: Robert's Rules of Order.
Large organizations, and organizations which have to remain unified despite bitter disagreements, developed social technologies such as RRoO. These typically feature meetings that have formal, pre-specified agendas plus a chairperson who is responsible for making sure each person has a chance to speak in an orderly fashion. Of course, RRoO are overkill for a small group with plenty of goodwill toward each other.
In small formal groups: Nonce agendas and rotating speakers
The best-organized small meetings I've ever attended were organized by the local anarchists. They were an independently-minded and fierce-willed bunch who did not much agree but who had common interests, which to my mind suggests that the method they used might be effectively adapted for use in LW meetups. They used the following method, sometimes with variations appropriate to the circumstances:
- Before and after the formal part of the meeting is informal social time.
- Call the meeting to order. Make any reminders the group needs and any explanatory announcements that newcomers would want to know, such as these rules.
- Pass around a clipboard for people to write agenda items down. All that is needed are a few words identifying the topic. (People can add to the agenda later, too, if they think of something belatedly.)
- Start with first agenda item. Discuss it (see below) until people are done with it. Then move on to the next agenda item. In discussing an agenda item, start with whoever added it to the agenda, and then proceed around the circle giving everyone a chance to talk.
- Whoever's turn it is, they not only get to speak, but they are the temporary chairperson also. If it helps, they can have a "talking stick" or "hot potato" or some physical object reminding everyone that it's their turn. They can ask questions for others to answer without giving up the talking stick. If you want to interrupt the speaker, you can raise your hand and they can call on you without giving up the talking stick.
- Any other necessary interruptions are handled by someone saying "point of order", briefly stating what they want, and the group votes on whether to do it.
In small informal groups: Natural leaders
Sometimes people have an aversion to groups that are structured in any manner they aren't already familiar and comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with that. You can approximate the above structure by having the more vocal members facilitate the conversation:
- Within a conversation on a topic, deliberately ask people who aren't as talkative what they think about the topic.
- When the conversation winds down on a topic, deliberately ask someone what's on their mind. Be sure to let everyone have a chance.
- Tactfully interrupt people who are too fond of their own voices, and attempt to pass the speaker-role to someone else.
What happens in the anarchist group if someone does not wish to relinquish the stick? (Perhaps the very ethos of the group makes this unlikely. But I'm curious if there's a method for dealing with people who, as you put it in the third part, "are too fond of their own voices".)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I would just like to note / point out that "SJW" is not a particularly neutral way to refer to the group of people in question -- it smuggles in (at least for some readers, and I suspect for most) a distinctly negative connotation about the group described.
Obviously if that's your intention, then by all means use the language you prefer; but if some of the commenters didn't mean it that way, and are just trying neutrally discuss a movement, I'd encourage picking a different term for it. (I normally say "the social justice movement".)
I will borrow from Error's very apt disclaimer in another comment, and note that my feelings toward the movement in question are more or less neutral -- "an affect borne of opinions that cancel out rather than a simple lack of same."