3 ms·

Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. When someon

Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. When someone says something you agree with (say, we need testing) then you automatically think of all the reasons you believe it and fill in the gaps in reasoning. If someone says something you do not agree with (we need more testing), you automatically summon the counter arguments to each point the person has laid out, and you roll your virtual eyes at this person for not thinking through "basic" things you feel you know. In short, none of our intuitions on what constitutes reasonable or reasoned are innocent.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Well said. This irrationality cuts both ways. It's very common for people to jump to "I suspect people are downvoting simply because they disagree", but I think there are fewer people doing this irrationally on HN than one might be tempted to believe, especially if one's own comment is downvoted, and especially if one is acquainted with the rest of the internet. I think most people here downvote because they reasonably believe a comment is low value, written in bad faith, or contains misinformation, even if that is informed by bias. Bias is unavoidable and natural, but I think on HN it tends to be less severe and less poisonous/tribal. This is all pretty subjective, but in the end I think downvoting is broadly useful in most communities. If I find myself being downvoted a lot in some community, I probably don't fit in there. That's fine - there are so many communities, and they all deserve to exist, and they can't all be for everybody, and when they have no capacity for self-moderation, their content inevitably becomes very low value (though potentially high in humor). The biggest problem with downvoting is that it tends to push people toward this oppressed, self-pitying, underdog mentality where people will start to act superior for the simple fact of having been downvoted, and attempt to rally others to identify with them and take their side against the "thought-policing elites".
generalpass 6y ago
> Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. > When someone says something you agree with (say, we need testing) then you automatically think of all the reasons you believe it and fill in the gaps in reasoning. If someone says something you do not agree with (we need more testing), you automatically summon the counter arguments to each point the person has laid out, and you roll your virtual eyes at this person for not thinking through "basic" things you feel you know. > In short, none of our intuitions on what constitutes reasonable or reasoned are innocent. I find an additional issue related to this is when attempting a meta-discussion on controversial topics are down-voting heavily. In the rare event that a reply is left, it usually suggests a belief that the purpose of the meta-discussion is to favor one of the positions in the topic. As if the purpose of having a meta-discussion can only be to cleverly sew seeds of doubt against or in favor a position, as if analyzing the question of "why are we asking this question" is never relevant.

happytoexplain 6y ago

Well said. This irrationality cuts both ways. It's very common for people to jump to "I suspect people are downvoting simply because they disagree", but I think there are fewer people doing this irrationally on HN than one might be tempted to believe, especially if one's own comment is downvoted, and especially if one is acquainted with the rest of the internet. I think most people here downvote because they reasonably believe a comment is low value, written in bad faith, or contains misinformation, even if that is informed by bias. Bias is unavoidable and natural, but I think on HN it tends to be less severe and less poisonous/tribal. This is all pretty subjective, but in the end I think downvoting is broadly useful in most communities. If I find myself being downvoted a lot in some community, I probably don't fit in there. That's fine - there are so many communities, and they all deserve to exist, and they can't all be for everybody, and when they have no capacity for self-moderation, their content inevitably becomes very low value (though potentially high in humor). The biggest problem with downvoting is that it tends to push people toward this oppressed, self-pitying, underdog mentality where people will start to act superior for the simple fact of having been downvoted, and attempt to rally others to identify with them and take their side against the "thought-policing elites".

generalpass 6y ago

> Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. > When someone says something you agree with (say, we need testing) then you automatically think of all the reasons you believe it and fill in the gaps in reasoning. If someone says something you do not agree with (we need more testing), you automatically summon the counter arguments to each point the person has laid out, and you roll your virtual eyes at this person for not thinking through "basic" things you feel you know. > In short, none of our intuitions on what constitutes reasonable or reasoned are innocent. I find an additional issue related to this is when attempting a meta-discussion on controversial topics are down-voting heavily. In the rare event that a reply is left, it usually suggests a belief that the purpose of the meta-discussion is to favor one of the positions in the topic. As if the purpose of having a meta-discussion can only be to cleverly sew seeds of doubt against or in favor a position, as if analyzing the question of "why are we asking this question" is never relevant.