3 ms·

> People are lazy, and turning public sentiment into a functioning movement is hard work. So, again, what's the value proposition? Additionally, why do these

> People are lazy, and turning public sentiment into a functioning movement is hard work. So, again, what's the value proposition? Additionally, why do these forum users generally appear to crave feedback? An evangelical who claims to have it all figured out will do their best to avoid feedback to not have their message called into question. And, more generally, if you really do think you have it all figured out, what is the feedback going to tell you? What is the value proposition in consuming it? There is a cost to that too. > That is, someone might feel some sense of pride when they help strangers by informing them of (what they see as) the truth, so they consider their time well spent. Is it conceivable that the same person would send the same type of commentary to ChatGPT? > Your idea would suggest that they aren't even sure if they want people to vote for them, and they only ask people to vote for them in order to probe for reasons why they shouldn't be voted for. Maybe. Like I said, you can only take a hypothetical so far. What an imagined person might think is only limited by your imagination of that person. I am not sure this can go anywhere. If you have real world experience in running for a political position, I'd love to hear about it. > but many people love to socialize with others for its own sake. It was recognized earlier that social interaction could potentially offer additional benefits not spoken of here, but as it is beyond the topic of conversation it is not something that has garnered attention to consider. But sending comments out to the digital void is not socialization. It is very much a solitary activity.

LegionMammal978 3y ago
> Additionally, why do these forum users generally appear to crave feedback? An evangelical who claims to have it all figured out will do their best to avoid feedback to not have their message called into question. Well, if you have a big ego, you might simply crave hearing other people agree with you, or congradulating you, or cheering you on. People are emotionally motivated like that. Alternatively, an evangelist might express their unshakeable belief for constructive feedback, not on why they might want to question their belief, but instead on how they can better present that belief. Presentation skills are very important for a committed evangelist to know! More generally, someone can post a comment on Reddit, some parts of which they do not question, just to introduce other parts that they want real feedback on. > Is it conceivable that the same person would send the same type of commentary to ChatGPT? Definitely, if they didn't know it was ChatGPT. Perhaps not, if they did. The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge. Especially with smaller communities, where one might already know something or another about the usual commentariat, to build a seed for the imagination. > But sending comments out to the digital void is not socialization. It is very much a solitary activity. You may feel that way, and it may very well be true, but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people. Compare with parasocial relationships, which are well-documented. The celebrity does not care about a random person watching online, but this does not stop that person from harboring an illusion of intimacy. Similarly, a person expressing their beliefs in public without wanting to learn anything is likely building a persona of the invisible audience, and becoming emotionally invested in that persona. This is only reinforced if someone occasionally gets bits of emotionally positive feedback from a few audience members. So I'd say that there is usually no value proposition in terms of material gain for publically posting on Reddit. Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets when talking to the imagined audience persona.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > Well, if you have a big ego, you might simply crave hearing other people agree with you. People are emotionally motivated like that. Why, then, so much attention towards controversial topics? Opinions that are not considered controversial should garner the most agreement to swell that ego. My opinion that "1+1=2" is, aside from those being contrarian for comedic effect, going to see nearly everyone agree! Now that I said it the agreements are going to pour in and my head is going to grow so big that the US military is going to scramble their fighter jets to shoot me down. Except, I'm not sure it works like that. I expect we don't continually get comments like "Guess what: 1+1=2!" because agreement towards your opinion doesn't stimulate the ego. Where the ego does come into play is when you haven't fully formed an opinion but are starting to feel more confident in a hypothesis you have been working on. The agreement strengthens support for the pathways that are on the verge of becoming established but are not yet established and validates the effort. Similarly, disagreement leaves one to feel like the effort has been all for not, hence the negative feelings. This doesn't happen when you have formed an opinion, though. You telling me that I am wrong and that "1+1=3" will generate no feelings. I couldn't care less. Right or wrong, I'm convinced that "1+1=2" and there is nothing you can say to change that opinion in me and it bores me that I had to resort to talking about it as an example for the sake of greater value of this discussion. Aside from the Reddit thing, my young child is currently in the process of learning about numbers and simple arithmetic. Them stating their opinion that "1+1=2" and me responding with "Yes, that's right!" clearly does result in some kind of pleasurable stimulation. They are still learning and haven't fully solidified the understanding – but I doubt this will last. Once there is confidence and the opinion is formed as their own, I expect it will be met with "Duh. Of course it is right! Why are you patronizing me?", not the joy from validation seen today. > The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge. Without reasonable proof of lives being improved, wouldn't this person be working on the hypothesis of a message being able to improve lives, using the exploration of sharing that opinion to see if it manifests into something that can transition from hypothesis to the person's actual opinion? I expect after one is certain, with no way to convince them otherwise, that they have helped people (or didn't help people) they will move on. > but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people. Is that a necessary precondition? > Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets That much is true. The learning value that comes from presenting a hypothetical opinion does not provide material gain. The value is very much derived from the warm and fuzzy feelings that are generated as opinions are in the process of being formed. What I am saying is that after the opinion is adopted, those feelings go away, and it is no longer interesting to share or discuss the opinion that has been formed. That is with at least in respect to using Reddit. Whether or not there is other extrinsic value seen in social experiences where formed options are shared has not been explored and is beyond the discussion here.

LegionMammal978 3y ago

> Additionally, why do these forum users generally appear to crave feedback? An evangelical who claims to have it all figured out will do their best to avoid feedback to not have their message called into question. Well, if you have a big ego, you might simply crave hearing other people agree with you, or congradulating you, or cheering you on. People are emotionally motivated like that. Alternatively, an evangelist might express their unshakeable belief for constructive feedback, not on why they might want to question their belief, but instead on how they can better present that belief. Presentation skills are very important for a committed evangelist to know! More generally, someone can post a comment on Reddit, some parts of which they do not question, just to introduce other parts that they want real feedback on. > Is it conceivable that the same person would send the same type of commentary to ChatGPT? Definitely, if they didn't know it was ChatGPT. Perhaps not, if they did. The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge. Especially with smaller communities, where one might already know something or another about the usual commentariat, to build a seed for the imagination. > But sending comments out to the digital void is not socialization. It is very much a solitary activity. You may feel that way, and it may very well be true, but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people. Compare with parasocial relationships, which are well-documented. The celebrity does not care about a random person watching online, but this does not stop that person from harboring an illusion of intimacy. Similarly, a person expressing their beliefs in public without wanting to learn anything is likely building a persona of the invisible audience, and becoming emotionally invested in that persona. This is only reinforced if someone occasionally gets bits of emotionally positive feedback from a few audience members. So I'd say that there is usually no value proposition in terms of material gain for publically posting on Reddit. Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets when talking to the imagined audience persona.

randomdata 3y ago
> Well, if you have a big ego, you might simply crave hearing other people agree with you. People are emotionally motivated like that. Why, then, so much attention towards controversial topics? Opinions that are not considered controversial should garner the most agreement to swell that ego. My opinion that "1+1=2" is, aside from those being contrarian for comedic effect, going to see nearly everyone agree! Now that I said it the agreements are going to pour in and my head is going to grow so big that the US military is going to scramble their fighter jets to shoot me down. Except, I'm not sure it works like that. I expect we don't continually get comments like "Guess what: 1+1=2!" because agreement towards your opinion doesn't stimulate the ego. Where the ego does come into play is when you haven't fully formed an opinion but are starting to feel more confident in a hypothesis you have been working on. The agreement strengthens support for the pathways that are on the verge of becoming established but are not yet established and validates the effort. Similarly, disagreement leaves one to feel like the effort has been all for not, hence the negative feelings. This doesn't happen when you have formed an opinion, though. You telling me that I am wrong and that "1+1=3" will generate no feelings. I couldn't care less. Right or wrong, I'm convinced that "1+1=2" and there is nothing you can say to change that opinion in me and it bores me that I had to resort to talking about it as an example for the sake of greater value of this discussion. Aside from the Reddit thing, my young child is currently in the process of learning about numbers and simple arithmetic. Them stating their opinion that "1+1=2" and me responding with "Yes, that's right!" clearly does result in some kind of pleasurable stimulation. They are still learning and haven't fully solidified the understanding – but I doubt this will last. Once there is confidence and the opinion is formed as their own, I expect it will be met with "Duh. Of course it is right! Why are you patronizing me?", not the joy from validation seen today. > The emotional element comes from imagining the hypothetical lives of the audience members being improved from their knowledge. Without reasonable proof of lives being improved, wouldn't this person be working on the hypothesis of a message being able to improve lives, using the exploration of sharing that opinion to see if it manifests into something that can transition from hypothesis to the person's actual opinion? I expect after one is certain, with no way to convince them otherwise, that they have helped people (or didn't help people) they will move on. > but I don't think that has sunk in on an emotional level for most people. Is that a necessary precondition? > Instead, the value mostly lies in the feelings one gets That much is true. The learning value that comes from presenting a hypothetical opinion does not provide material gain. The value is very much derived from the warm and fuzzy feelings that are generated as opinions are in the process of being formed. What I am saying is that after the opinion is adopted, those feelings go away, and it is no longer interesting to share or discuss the opinion that has been formed. That is with at least in respect to using Reddit. Whether or not there is other extrinsic value seen in social experiences where formed options are shared has not been explored and is beyond the discussion here.