3 ms·

Some HN readers wonder why people don't simply demolish my psychology posts using evidence, instead of anonymously downvoting them (the preferred approach). The

by lutusp 12y ago

Some HN readers wonder why people don't simply demolish my psychology posts using evidence, instead of anonymously downvoting them (the preferred approach). The answer is simple: they can't -- the evidence is overwhelming that psychology is not a scientific enterprise. It's a matter of choosing which piece of evidence to present on a given day, from a wide array of possibilities.

dllthomas 12y ago
There have been many threads where people have gone back and forth with you at length. "They're bitter and can't think of a valid response" is one possibility, but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long conversation in response to basically the same comment" is another. It's bad form to simply declare that it's the former. For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I think some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this comment and its parent.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long conversation in response to basically the same comment" is another. Several have tried to do just that, saying, for example, that I am wrong and that voting constitutes science, or that control groups aren't essential to serious human studies. While simultaneously downvoting, of course. > For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I think some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this comment and its parent. You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a legitimate viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post should contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at fault to deserve that remedy? As to my views being "not well founded", if that were true, because I state my views so clearly it should be possible -- not to say easy -- to persuasively argue against them, demolish them with logic, by taking the high road. No one can do that, and no one has done that. http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Sorry, very important typo - I downvoted the comment I replied to, and not its parent. Perhaps someone with access (dang?) could confirm that, if there's any doubt. "While simultaneously downvoting, of course." You have no way of knowing that it was the same people. "You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a legitimate viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post should contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at fault to deserve that remedy?" I am aware. It is not crazy to believe that comments repeating the same points over and over are contributing nothing to the conversation. That said, as I mentioned above, I downvoted only the comment ranting about downvotes. "No one can do that, and no one has done that." I believe I have done so in more than one instance; you ignore the points I make, accuse me of supporting positions expressed by others, demolish those points (often effectively, sometimes relying on other bad reasoning), and declare victory. If you'd actually engage intellectually rather than rhetorically, it would be a more productive experience for everyone. As is, it's exhausting and unproductive, and has no bearing on the accuracy of either position - which is frustrating, because I would like to know if I'm wrong.

by lutusp 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

There have been many threads where people have gone back and forth with you at length. "They're bitter and can't think of a valid response" is one possibility, but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long conversation in response to basically the same comment" is another. It's bad form to simply declare that it's the former. For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I think some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this comment and its parent.

lutusp 12y ago
> but "they can't be bothered to launch into the same long conversation in response to basically the same comment" is another. Several have tried to do just that, saying, for example, that I am wrong and that voting constitutes science, or that control groups aren't essential to serious human studies. While simultaneously downvoting, of course. > For the record, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your position though I think some of your arguments are not well founded, and I downvoted this comment and its parent. You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a legitimate viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post should contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at fault to deserve that remedy? As to my views being "not well founded", if that were true, because I state my views so clearly it should be possible -- not to say easy -- to persuasively argue against them, demolish them with logic, by taking the high road. No one can do that, and no one has done that. http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind
- dllthomas 12y ago
  Sorry, very important typo - I downvoted the comment I replied to, and not its parent. Perhaps someone with access (dang?) could confirm that, if there's any doubt. "While simultaneously downvoting, of course." You have no way of knowing that it was the same people. "You are aware, are you not, that your being in disagreement with a legitimate viewpoint is not a valid reason to downvote, yes? That a post should contribute nothing to the conversation, or otherwise be egregiously at fault to deserve that remedy?" I am aware. It is not crazy to believe that comments repeating the same points over and over are contributing nothing to the conversation. That said, as I mentioned above, I downvoted only the comment ranting about downvotes. "No one can do that, and no one has done that." I believe I have done so in more than one instance; you ignore the points I make, accuse me of supporting positions expressed by others, demolish those points (often effectively, sometimes relying on other bad reasoning), and declare victory. If you'd actually engage intellectually rather than rhetorically, it would be a more productive experience for everyone. As is, it's exhausting and unproductive, and has no bearing on the accuracy of either position - which is frustrating, because I would like to know if I'm wrong.