In a very basic sense I tend to downvote posts that are very poorly worded and I disagree with their content. That's not an absolute case because sometimes ther

In a very basic sense I tend to downvote posts that are very poorly worded and I disagree with their content. That's not an absolute case because sometimes there are posts that are very poorly worded and I may agree with their content but they suck so bad I will downvote them because they're not adding any value. Not even the value of being a good troll post. Posts that look like they have put some thought or effort into whatever their conclusions are or the discussion that they're making I will tend to either not vote or upvote regardless of whether I agree with the post overall or not. When someone is taking the time to make a salient point I believe that needs to be recognized for consideration. The voting system has its pros and cons but if you have a reasonably mature audience it should ultimately balance out. Just because I find no value or I believe that is a poorly worded or thought out post others may disagree and so my one down vote means nothing. I do get the general impression that some people up or down vote purely based upon their agreement or disagreement with the content of the message. Not only as it relates to some of the things that I posted but I have also seen other comments be downvoted to the point you can't hardly see them but the person seem to be making a genuine thought out argument in their post. It was unpopular argument but it appeared to me well thought out. Ultimately I don't think anyone person can answer why people like or dislike a certain types of content. I think when you take broad groups of people you can make some generalizations that certain groups of people based upon their backgrounds and educational levels dislike having their worldview challenged and react badly to it. Other people based on their backgrounds and education levels and so forth are more open-minded about having their worldview challenged even if it doesn't change their mind. They are open to the Socratic method of learning and defending what your beliefs and understandings are. I find most people on hacker News fall into that second category they seem to genuinely want to have a discussion around its merits even if they don't change their mind. They generally seem to respect that other people may have a different belief in certain areas and that's not necessarily wrong it's just different.