Hacker News Reader

Comment by hos234 | Hacker News Reader

It is Pavlov's dog experiment, where instead of the bell, you have a like/retweet Count conditioning and reinforcing behavior. Natural human interaction has never had a number placed next to every thought and utterance.

The numbers have fucked up the way people think and behave.

View on HN

"The numbers have fucked up the way people think and behave"

les measurables

It is Pavlov's dog experiment, where instead of the bell, you have an upvote Count conditioning and reinforcing behavior. Natural human interaction has never had a number placed next to every thought and utterance.

The numbers have fucked up the way people think and behave.

I could understand if both the parent and grand parent were equally down voted, but they're not. Instead the parent is downvoted without any explanation as to why they're wrong, and a culture of pointing out why someone is wrong before downvoting them is the only reasonable dividing line I can think of between the 2 comments, thus seemingly proving the parent right...

It's because repeating posts provide no value.

It's different in a way that makes an important point.

Could it have be put differently? Probably, but another rule of good discourse is to play the argument not the man (or the presentation), so you again seem to be making the parents point.

Maybe I'm missing something but the text is nearly identical except to show how forums might provide similar motivations. That's pretty redundant.

HN is pretty strict about low quality content and such, that's not "proving a point" it's just a question of local traditions.

Personal I've little regard for "you're proving my point by down-voting me" kind of arguments, it's always almost self serving and either a question of that user's ignorance about the local forum's policies or they just don't care.

So we're on the same page, I understood qwsxyh to be making reference to hacker news. In view of that the up/down votes clearly aren't what make twitter what it is, or else HN would be the same, and I hope we can both agree that it isn't. So what is the difference? Id say culture, you're saying traditions (potato, potahto), so what is that culture? I would say at minimum communicating a reason for downvotes, rather than than just the blunt instrument of the downvote alone. Another cultural trait is frowning on ad hominem attacks, because its the message that should be debated, debating the form of the message seems closely related to me.

So it isn't about "you're proving my point by down-voting me"

I think culture plays a part, but the medium does to, I'd argue a great deal.

The differences between HN's system, and twitters is pretty obvious IMO.

Just at the most obvious twitter limits the amount of text. I doubt the average HN post would even fit on twitter. That's a pretty significant difference just to start.

>So it isn't about "you're proving my point by down-voting me"

I don't know what you mean by that.

"I don't know what you mean by that"

I was fully explaining my point of view, because I don't think it boils down to that.

I would argue that HN's voting system tends to encourage shorter comments. I personally find it annoying to write a well reasoned 10 point essay and get downvotes and no feedback, is there one particular point you're disagreeing with or what? So I would argue that long comments survive despite the voting system.

Could you suggest other differences in medium that you think make the difference? Moderation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com