Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2017, 02:30 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2017 02:33 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Consensus
(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Depending on which day you ask I'd say that there's no greater virtue than being able to admit when one is in the wrong. The world would be a much better place if people learned that being wrong is not a sin.
Agreed.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Primitive yes. Savages? On what grounds do you make this claim?
.......the definition of the word savage?

sav·age
ˈsavij/

noun
noun: savage; plural noun: savages

1.
(chiefly in historical or literary contexts) a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Were they ignorant? Yes. Were they stupid? On what grounds does someone claim this?
Why the hell are you asking me this? I never claimed they were stupid.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  We are all ignorant.
Ya, that was kinda my point, but there is a sliding scale. This is why I said we are less ignorant than our ancestors and more ignorant than our descendants.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It's an error to assume that we are somehow smarter than our ancestors.
Good thing I never did that then isn't it? Drinking Beverage

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am not willing to make claims about how ignorant or not they were about things.
You tacitly did that in your OP when you made objects (which you couldn't support by the way) that we were in error to think we are less ignorant and savage than our ancestors. For that objection to be tru to you we have to at, at the very least, be at parity with them. So ya you kinda did.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  If you start pushing into advanced concepts like particle physics, quantum theory, etc, than ya I would be willing to say they were probably ignorant of those things.
Haha no I'm not talking about the fact that ancient civilisations were ignorant and savage because they didn't have a working model of quantum mechanics, I'm talking about things like not understanding like why shitting in your drinking water is a bad idea. Why cutting out the hearts of living breathing people to appease the sun so crops will grow won't do jack shit. Why a crytals and rocks are not an exceptable form of health care.

You are being disingenuous.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Did they have a theory of evolution? Of gravity? I have no clue.
Sure they did and that theory was "god did it". Did they have a correct and demonstrable theory of those things? No, the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggest that they had a demonstrably working theory and lots of evidence to suggest they did not.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am saying I have no clue and therefore no opinion one way or the other.
Then you are ignorant of the evidence that exists on the subject.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Göbekli Tepe is important because it demonstrates purposeful engineering using primitive conditions. If you think it's a demonstration of "stacking rocks" then you are missing the true wonder of it. Consider for a moment just what it took to build Göbekli Tepe.
Could we, using our understanding and technology, build something similar to Göbekli Tepe? Yup. Could the people who built Göbekli Tepe with their understanding and technology build the Empire State building? No on your fucking life. they were too ignorant of too many sciences to ever do so. they were, as a matter of FACT, more ignorant than we are.
That's not a denigration on them, it's just a fact. We advance and become less ignorant, that's how it works.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  To me the question is why did this seed of civilisation fail?
Ok first off if that's the important question why the fuck are you only bringing this up now? You are getting dangerously close to shifting of goal posts. Secondly, it might be a question that interests you but it's not relevant to your objection that we are somehow wrong for considering ourselves less ignorant and less savage than our ancestors.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  And, how many other such civilizations have been aborted in the last 100,000 years? And was evidence of these aborted civilizations destroyed?
I'm not interested in "what if" or "could be" in the slightest. I'm extra not interested in you JAQing off.
You can fidn those questions interesting, that's fine, but they don't have a place in a debate.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:   This is an article related to the theory I proposed. I am attempting to find the original but it's been some years so it may take me some time to find where I first came across the theory. As originally stated if I am remembering correctly the theory held that language most likely developed along side tool use, which if true means that language is far older than originally thought.
Quick question. Does this book demonstrate your assertion that humans learned art, music, language, and fire from Neanderthals and thus, as a matter of necessity, did not have those things prior?
Because if it doesn't and it's all a big goal post shift I'd rather not waste my time.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The point I was attempting to make was not specifically that Neanderthals are responsible for language, art, etc...
That's funny because that's EXACTLY what you said. You specifically said humans learned those things from Neandertals.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  but rather that homo sapiens more than likely learned it somewhere else.
I don't think you understand how Evolution actually works. Did Felis silvestris teach modern house cats how to meow?

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Given the closeness with which the two groups lived together however it is quite likely that they may be the source.
And you determined this likelihood....how exactly?

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am not arguing "what if"
You have tried to prop up your position several times now by doing exactly this. " we don't have any evidence they had a written laungue ......but we don't have evidence they didn't!"
This is nonsense.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Consensus is neither good nor bad on it's own. Consensus does not convey the truth or falsehood of a belief on it's own. The only value of consensus is to say that A number of people believed X at Y time. A reputation system by it's definition is a consensus system.
Stop, stop, stop, stop. I don't need you to regurgitate your assertions, I need you to actually address the criticisms I've levelled against your assertions.

consensus
: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group


If 49 people consider your reputation to be positive and 51 people consider your reputation to be negative does that mean that the -1 negative reputation that you would have is an opinion shared by all people in that group?

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Completely remove me from the argument. Does the argument made have validity?
I've already done that multiple times and no it did not help. You provided in your last post 2 links with about a total of 15(ish) examples that you felt supported your assertions in the OP about consensus and reputation. They did not support you, I demonstrated exactly how they don't support you and from reading your post it seem evident that you are just going to ignore that fact and repeat your assertion.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The argument IS NOT TTA has a corrupt rep system.
Bullshit sir. You said that reputation systems are fundamentally flawed but can not show a single fucking example of these so called fundamental laws actually manifesting.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The argument is that consensus systems can and are easily manipulated over time.
Yet you have failed to provide a single example of it actually happening. Repeatedly failed.


(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The warning is how did a consensus society like that in Black Mirror come about.
Because a group of fiction writers wrote a fictional story. Are you serious right now? The only defence of your position you are able to give now is "well I watched a fictional TV show once and in that fictional world my assertions happen!"

That is no more rational than someone making an argument for widespread government corruption because Voldermort was able to hijack the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter.

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  There are people out there right now (and I know because I have met them) who are advocating a rep system on mass be adopted.
And that's relevant to you making assertions you can't support how exactly?

(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As to the concern of anti-intellectualism. If it is meant that I am anti-reason then no I am not anti-intellectual.
No, you are anti-intellectual in my opinion because you denigrate a whole group of scientists studying mammals by implying through the quotes around the word scientist that they aren't real scientists. You're anti-intellectual in my opinion because you don't bother to fact check or investigate your own sources if you even read them at all. That enough or should I continue? You are anti-intellectual my opinion because you think, and have provided what you think are examples of, the scientific community rejecting unevidenced claims as proof they operate under consensus and will reject that which isn't. You're anti-intellectual because you have shown several times through examples given by you that you don't think that actually having evidence is required to overturn accepted scientific understanding. Lastly, I think you are inti-intellectual because you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstand of, and hostility towards, how the scientific method works.


I'm going to close out this post with a question. A question asked because I'm curious what you answer is and I'm curious if you can answer it honestly if at all.

Do you think the negative reputation you have is fair and earned, or do you believe it has been "manipulated" against you?

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
12-07-2017, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 02:00 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: Consensus
Savage: 1) Lacking restraints "normal" to civilized human beings. 2) Bad mannered.
Silvaticus: Wild, untamed, more literally of the wood.

Primitive: 1) Of or pertaining to the beginning or origin, or to early times; original; primordial; primeval; first. 2) Of or pertaining to or harking back to a former time; old-fashioned; characterized by simplicity. 3) Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage of development or evolution.
primitivus/primus: First

Civilized: Having or pertaining to good manners.
Civis: Townsman.

Primitive and Savage while they are used as synonyms but are not the same thing.

Quote:there is a sliding scale. This is why I said we are less ignorant than our ancestors and more ignorant than our descendants.
This presupposes that knowledge always carries forward. And or that all knowledge or customs are valid in all times and places. Given that at some point in the human went from not believing in gods to believing in gods I would say that is a down grade.

parity in what way? Are we today more technologically advanced. We don't know what they thought or believed. For all we know they could have been a civilization of Greek philosophers who studied the natural world. Or they could have raped and murdered each other all the time. or they could have been anything in between.

Quote:I'm talking about things like not understanding like why shitting in your drinking water is a bad idea. Why cutting out the hearts of living breathing people to appease the sun so crops will grow won't do jack shit. Why a crytals and rocks are not an exceptable form of health care.
my objections in a nut shell. Germ theory actually isn't a necessary concept to understand "don't shit where you drink". Dead animal. That animal drank down stream of dead animal. Now that second animal is dead. When did they develop the concept of human sacrifice to appease the gods(more on this in a moment)? Again when and how did they develop the idea of crystals and rocks curing disease?

As to the human sacrifice. Something that gets lost in the modern world is the luxury we have today. One of the more credible theories I have heard about the development of human sacrifice is that it was born out of necessity given the small gene pool. Human sacrifice from everything I have read tends to be done in regions which cannot afford the luxury of caring for the defective. I do not use the word here as a pejorative, but in it's literal meaning. The development of domestication of animals would have also proved that it was a bad idea to let such defects be breed into the society. Today we have the luxury of keeping people around that in previous times it would not have been possible to keep around. It is a luxury I am grateful for(Stephen Hawking), but which I will not look down on them for.
*While there are examples of human sacrifice being used in excess (the Aztecs as one example) this appears to be an exception not a rule.

Quote:Sure they did and that theory was "god did it". Did they have a correct and demonstrable theory of those things? No, the answer is no. There is no evidence to suggest that they had a demonstrably working theory and lots of evidence to suggest they did not.
When did the theory of gods originate? With the first homo sap? before then? I'm so glad you know the answer, please tell me where you read about this so I can read about it too. Or did Adam find out about the existence of gods while walking in the garden? How and when did the concept of spirits, souls and the like enter the human consciousness? You are making a pretty heavy assumption to believe it was there from the beginning.

Quote:Could we, using our understanding and technology, build something similar to Göbekli Tepe? Yup. Could the people who built Göbekli Tepe with their understanding and technology build the Empire State building?
and you accuse me of being disingenuous? What technology is required for the theory of evolution? For the theory of gravity? The first steam engine was built in the first century. Cistercian monks were building a proto-type blast furnace until Henery VIII came along. How many times and in how many places has technology been invented only to be lost, only to be reinvented? How many times was writing invented? How are we suppose to know? When does proto-writing become writing? Given how little writing from early antiquity exists what is the likelihood that we would be able to find yet older writings?

Could they build the empire state building? Not an equal question at all. If you dropped an engineer from today back then could he build the empire state building? No. Why? Access to resources.

How many times does something have to be invented and reinvented before it sticks? I have no idea. Göbekli Tepe is last time I knew the oldest known civilization to date and it wasn't discovered all that long ago. Given the age of the species I am not willing to say it is or is not in fact the oldest, nor am I willing to say that there was or was not a more advanced(for values of advanced) civilization. What conditions must obtain for civilization? Can we find those conditions elsewhere? The world is a big freakin place.

As to my question about why the seeds of civilization failed. What ifs and could be are the stuff of science. What if we all weren't spontaneously generated by some divine being? Could be we evolved from a common ancestor. What your doing is making a hard claim about how ancient humans were. You are not out right saying it but you are strongly implying that they were stupid (see empire state building) as opposed to ignorant. And you are making several assumptions about the conditions necessary to acquire knowledge of certain scientific facts.

I said Neanderthal because from what I can remember that was the stronger theory of the author. The specific claim of the author was that homo sapiens did not invent those things but rather learned them somewhere else. The author theorized that Neanderthals were not the originators either yet the evidence was far less conclusive. While exactly where we got language, art, etc from was in question, that we got it from somewhere else was not.

* Do not expect me to provide the name of the book in the next day or two, but I will provide it when I find it. We are talking about something I read ~5 years ago. Given the rate at which I consume books (audio, kindle, and physical) I have to go through each of my libraries because I don't even remember which format I read it on. This isn't a copout. In just audiobooks ONE of my accounts is almost at a thousand books. If it's a physical copy I pruned it's going to take me longer but I will find it and provide the title.

Why do I assume they were living closely together? Because homo saps interbred at least limitedly with Neanderthals by the evidence we have. [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manot_Cave] Manot Cave[/url] while I wont say it's the earliest the two interacted, it is the earliest we know of that they could have done this.

If you wish to continue the above discussion I am going to ask that it be moved to a separate thread.

***
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 01:59 AM
RE: Consensus
For Neanderthal response see above


To return to the original topic of the thread, I will upfront say that part of the reason it has taken me so long to post a reply is because I wanted to give your question some serious thought. Part of the reason for delay was that I had some personal stuff going on. I say this so you will know I was not attempting to avoid your question.

Quote:Do you think the negative reputation you have is fair and earned, or do you believe it has been "manipulated" against you?
Before I answer this question let me state that it appears to imply that I place value on the reputation system. To me it is much the same as a Christian presuming that deep down I must really believe in god, otherwise why would I talk about god. So in order to answer your question I had to ask myself "If I assume that the reputation system is valid what could I conclude about my rating".

Is the purpose of the reputation system to validate people with positive ratings over those of people who have negative ratings? I don't know. If the answer is yes then I can might conclude that the purpose of publicly displaying the rating system is to allow an individual to be prejudged based on color (red or green/positive or negative).
If this is not the case then why is the rating made public? Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is not however the purpose. What might the rating tell us? It would tell us that those who have taken the time for rating think more negatively of me. It speaks nothing of the opinion of those who have not take the time to rate a poster. given that people are more likely to take the time to give a negative review than they are to give a positive review, this still tells us nothing.

But wait!

If that is true how does that explain people in the positive? The question I pose is this in turn. How likely is someone with a +30 to negatively rate someone with a +90? Further is someone who gives a positive rating in turn more likely to receive a positive rating than a neutral (no rating), or negative rating from the person they rated? Is there a form of confirmation bias going on? You confirm me so I confirm you. Is there a fear of retaliation going on? You have a higher positive rating so I refrain from giving you a negative rating? (I am currently considering putting together a survey because these are interesting questions).

So far however the question of what this tells us remains unanswered. So then let me tell you what I can conclude starting with your second question. Do I think the reputation system has been manipulated against me? No. Do I think my negative reputation is fair and earned? This is a harder question to answer. Instead to make the question easier to answer I might phrase the question this way "Do I think that the individuals who rated me had a reason to give me the rating they did?". The answer to this question is yes. What it tells me of their reason is nothing. Perhaps they took issue with my approach. Perhaps they took issue with what I said (something entirely different). Perhaps a hundred different reasons. I can't even say that there was a single particular reason as humans are complex and rarely able to be pin holed into a single reason for anything. What it tells me overall however is nothing.

As to Black Mirror let me ask you a question. Have you ever read the story It can't happen here? As to how this is relevant is because Lewis Sinclair Lewis I am a believer in not waiting until the is overwhelming before one begins to protest the danger.

To the charge of anti-intellectualism I recommend that you go back and look at the context in which quotes were used. I distinguish between "scientists" and scientists. I also think it is fair to ask what preconceived notions one might have and how that would effect their conclusions. I do limit this question to conclusions I disagree with. I believe it is extremely important to be aware of confirmation bias, ESPECIALLY if one agrees with the conclusion. Wanting to know how and why they came to the conclusion they did does not make me anti-intellectual. Neither does realistically understanding that there is confirmation bias even among people who claim to be "scientists".

You have not addressed in any way the problems of positive feed back and or negative feed when it comes to consensus formation.

Nor have you addressed the problem of False Consensus Effect (FCE)
In particular I point you to this as to why I object in particular to public rep systems. A public rep system does not simply provide feedback to the user but creates bias for positive rated users and against negatively rated users. This does not mean that I do not object to private rep systems (although there are ways to mitigate many of the objections I raised above) it does not address either the problem of positive feedback nor the problem of False Consensus Effect. While I have spelled out the problem of positive feed back let me do so for FCE. An individual may assume for example that because they have positive rating that the majority of individuals agree with them in general.

My own personal approach is that I try to go into a situation assuming that I am the minority opinion. I say try because sometimes I do assume that the majority agree with me on particular topics. See the psycnet study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 08:41 AM
RE: Consensus
(06-07-2017 05:04 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I will lay out my objection to reputation system. For anyone who has seen Black Mirror season 3 you will know exactly where I am going with this. Rep systems are fundamentally flawed because they rely on the consensus and silent voices of dissent. Very quickly individuals can find themselves black listed for voicing opposing views. This leads to a snake eating it's own tail, with individuals being excommunicated for stepping outside the acceptable doctrine. I was ridiculed elsewhere on this forum for saying that I don't care what the consensus says. Not too long ago the consensus was that slavery was alright because the bible said so. There have been all kinds of things believed and done in the name of consensus. We (humans as a whole) like to look back on the past as if we are at the height of human existence, of course our ancestors were ignorant savages. Consider the arrogance of that belief. We learned language, art, music, fire, and so much more from our Neanderthal cousins. Who's to say they didn't have writing, lot can be lost in 250,000 years. All of this was ridiculed and mocked by the consensus because at one point the facts didn't fit the accepted narrative. Up until the last decade "scientists" were still pushing the idea that most mammals were monogamous, now we know less than 3%(perhaps, maybe, we really hope) are monogamous. I don't care about the consensus I care about the facts. Show me the raw data. Rep systems are bunk. Consensus is bunk. It's how you end up with an inbred ideology.

How sure am I of my own views? Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think your bound to be okay, because your in the safely moral majority."-- Christopher Hitchens

Stay Skeptical

*Thanks to Buckey Ball for the spell check. I'm dyslexic so I always appreciate the assit.

I have never given a negative rep to anyone for disagreeing with me or anyone else on the forum. I can't recall anybody doing so in all my years here.

Now, if you come here, defecate all over the rug, post and refute in a disingenuous manner or spam the heck out of the place you'll find you get people reacting in a suitable manner. Think of the rep system as a way to scruff a recalcitrant dog by the neck and place it outside.

You ask for data but from reading your previous posts and dealing with some conspiracy theorists in the past (not calling you one), nothing we post or link to good peer reviewed sources (when applicable) would suffice.

Please note I think you're here to waste time, I have seen little that shows you want serious debate, I disagree with most if not all of what you post. I have not given you a negative rep. Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
12-07-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 08:41 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I have never given a negative rep to anyone for disagreeing with me or anyone else on the forum. I can't recall anybody doing so in all my years here.

Now, if you come here, defecate all over the rug, post and refute in a disingenuous manner or spam the heck out of the place you'll find you get people reacting in a suitable manner. Think of the rep system as a way to scruff a recalcitrant dog by the neck and place it outside.

You ask for data but from reading your previous posts and dealing with some conspiracy theorists in the past (not calling you one), nothing we post or link to good peer reviewed sources (when applicable) would suffice.

Please note I think you're here to waste time, I have seen little that shows you want serious debate, I disagree with most if not all of what you post. I have not given you a negative rep. Drinking Beverage

Please address the problem of positive feedback.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 01:05 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 12:42 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Please address the problem of positive feedback.

Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium. System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. All of those are viable available options at your disposal here.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-07-2017, 01:15 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 01:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  your disposal here.

This, this here I like Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
12-07-2017, 01:15 PM
RE: Consensus
Right now the only positive feedback I'm seeing is reinforcement of my original neg rep.

Your attitude and your behaviour determine how people see you and whether you're liked. You can apply as much fancy language to that as you like. If you act like a prick you'll be repped accordingly. Finish and klaar.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
12-07-2017, 01:31 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 12:42 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 08:41 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I have never given a negative rep to anyone for disagreeing with me or anyone else on the forum. I can't recall anybody doing so in all my years here.

Now, if you come here, defecate all over the rug, post and refute in a disingenuous manner or spam the heck out of the place you'll find you get people reacting in a suitable manner. Think of the rep system as a way to scruff a recalcitrant dog by the neck and place it outside.

You ask for data but from reading your previous posts and dealing with some conspiracy theorists in the past (not calling you one), nothing we post or link to good peer reviewed sources (when applicable) would suffice.

Please note I think you're here to waste time, I have seen little that shows you want serious debate, I disagree with most if not all of what you post. I have not given you a negative rep. Drinking Beverage

Please address the problem of positive feedback.

Dude seriously:are you for real, your behaviour so far is now beginning to convince me that you are being deliberately inflammatory and that you are actually encouraging us to give you neg rep so you can justify your ideas and behavior, sadly you have given me no reason to respect your intellectual capacity whatsoever. I'm sadly disappointed as I had hoped we could all reach a resolution. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like adey67's post
12-07-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 01:59 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  For Neanderthal response see above


To return to the original topic of the thread, I will upfront say that part of the reason it has taken me so long to post a reply is because I wanted to give your question some serious thought. Part of the reason for delay was that I had some personal stuff going on. I say this so you will know I was not attempting to avoid your question.

Quote:Do you think the negative reputation you have is fair and earned, or do you believe it has been "manipulated" against you?
Before I answer this question let me state that it appears to imply that I place value on the reputation system. To me it is much the same as a Christian presuming that deep down I must really believe in god, otherwise why would I talk about god. So in order to answer your question I had to ask myself "If I assume that the reputation system is valid what could I conclude about my rating".

Is the purpose of the reputation system to validate people with positive ratings over those of people who have negative ratings? I don't know. If the answer is yes then I can might conclude that the purpose of publicly displaying the rating system is to allow an individual to be prejudged based on color (red or green/positive or negative).
If this is not the case then why is the rating made public? Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is not however the purpose. What might the rating tell us? It would tell us that those who have taken the time for rating think more negatively of me. It speaks nothing of the opinion of those who have not take the time to rate a poster. given that people are more likely to take the time to give a negative review than they are to give a positive review, this still tells us nothing.

But wait!

If that is true how does that explain people in the positive? The question I pose is this in turn. How likely is someone with a +30 to negatively rate someone with a +90? Further is someone who gives a positive rating in turn more likely to receive a positive rating than a neutral (no rating), or negative rating from the person they rated? Is there a form of confirmation bias going on? You confirm me so I confirm you. Is there a fear of retaliation going on? You have a higher positive rating so I refrain from giving you a negative rating? (I am currently considering putting together a survey because these are interesting questions).

So far however the question of what this tells us remains unanswered. So then let me tell you what I can conclude starting with your second question. Do I think the reputation system has been manipulated against me? No. Do I think my negative reputation is fair and earned? This is a harder question to answer. Instead to make the question easier to answer I might phrase the question this way "Do I think that the individuals who rated me had a reason to give me the rating they did?". The answer to this question is yes. What it tells me of their reason is nothing. Perhaps they took issue with my approach. Perhaps they took issue with what I said (something entirely different). Perhaps a hundred different reasons. I can't even say that there was a single particular reason as humans are complex and rarely able to be pin holed into a single reason for anything. What it tells me overall however is nothing.

As to Black Mirror let me ask you a question. Have you ever read the story It can't happen here? As to how this is relevant is because Lewis Sinclair Lewis I am a believer in not waiting until the is overwhelming before one begins to protest the danger.

To the charge of anti-intellectualism I recommend that you go back and look at the context in which quotes were used. I distinguish between "scientists" and scientists. I also think it is fair to ask what preconceived notions one might have and how that would effect their conclusions. I do limit this question to conclusions I disagree with. I believe it is extremely important to be aware of confirmation bias, ESPECIALLY if one agrees with the conclusion. Wanting to know how and why they came to the conclusion they did does not make me anti-intellectual. Neither does realistically understanding that there is confirmation bias even among people who claim to be "scientists".

You have not addressed in any way the problems of positive feed back and or negative feed when it comes to consensus formation.

Nor have you addressed the problem of False Consensus Effect (FCE)
In particular I point you to this as to why I object in particular to public rep systems. A public rep system does not simply provide feedback to the user but creates bias for positive rated users and against negatively rated users. This does not mean that I do not object to private rep systems (although there are ways to mitigate many of the objections I raised above) it does not address either the problem of positive feedback nor the problem of False Consensus Effect. While I have spelled out the problem of positive feed back let me do so for FCE. An individual may assume for example that because they have positive rating that the majority of individuals agree with them in general.

My own personal approach is that I try to go into a situation assuming that I am the minority opinion. I say try because sometimes I do assume that the majority agree with me on particular topics. See the psycnet study.

Uuugh. I really thought you were making improvement and I thought you were taking a few days to figuratively install a few critical updates in your internal operating system and do a hard reboot before posting again.

Okay. You are not as deep and profound as you think you are.

The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you. This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.

Cut your losses and move on to a new topic. We do not agree on this point and neither party seems to be budging. That's okay! This just isn't your audience for that. Can't you recognize that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: