

Ask HN: Increasing Karma Implies Decreasing Variance? - patrocles
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/do-influential-people-develop-more-conventional-opinions.html
Using # of posts / time period as a proxy for variety (big maybe), does Robin Hanson's question withstand scrutiny using HN posting data?
======
swombat
Anyone who's followed some of my threads here know that I don't shy away from
controversial arguments (some of which got downmodded to hell), despite being
in the top 15 on the leaderboard.

Let me be clear - I clearly do enjoy the game of accumulating karma points,
but I enjoy the game of speaking my mind far more.

I've seen plenty of controversial arguments (some of which got downmodded to
hell too) from other "high karma" people, so I don't think this is a problem
here, though it may be a problem in other communities.

~~~
unalone
Some high karma people are there _because_ they trigger controversy.
mattmaroon comes to mind. And I don't know if I count as a high-karma user but
I'm on the leaderboard, and I think that most of my karma comes _only_ from
controversial discussions.

So far, I've seen very few HN users who have high karma because they're gaming
the system. We're too small to have high karma matter much, so a lot of people
just try their damndest to contribute to the community - and in a community of
thinkers and designers, that usually means speaking your mind rather than
conforming.

~~~
mariorz
Most of the users in the leaderboard are there by the sheer amount of their
posts rather than by being particularly insightful or controversial.

~~~
unalone
I've seen one or two users who are very active but don't get many upvotes. On
the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something
like a hundred upvotes. So I'd guess that quality plays a part.

~~~
mariorz
Yes, post quality is one of the factors. My point is that of course there is
plenty of gaming going on and it's of the simplest form. The leaderboard only
encourages this gaming mentality.

~~~
unalone
It does, and I wish we didn't have it. (I also wish we didn't display post
score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)

~~~
mariorz
>(I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a
benefit.)

That would be an interesting experiment. However, I think it does provide a
certain use, which is getting a sense of how people are perceiving the
discussion. Like the audience clapping or booing during a debate.

~~~
staunch
I would rather know what other people think _after_ I decide what I think.
Nothing is contributing to groupthink on this site more than the fact that we
don't use blind voting.

~~~
unalone
That's what I was thinking. I hate seeing what other people think of opinions
before I see them. Furthermore, they offer an "equalling" incentive: perhaps
I'm the only person here that thinks like this, but if I see two points, and
they're both well-argued, but the one I disagree with is rated higher than the
one I like, I'll either vote up the one and not the other, _or_ , if the one I
disagree with is very highly rated, I'll vote it down to bump the one I like
higher. The psychological impact of seeing the point _I_ made go higher is one
that modifies my voting patterns, which I don't like.

------
adrianwaj
Would some please explain how the article's actual headline: Do influential
people develop more conventional opinions? led to this being a Ask HN
question. Is the question suggesting that more karma = more conformity with
mainstream views?

------
time_management
I don't think it applies to Hacker News, because no one "games" karma, and
having a high score doesn't seem to give anyone special influence over site
content.

Wikipedia certainly has this problem, though. It seems to appeal to those with
the petty-tyrant mentality, too.

------
quizbiz
The simple answer is no. Case sample: Rush Limbaugh

An interesting theory.

~~~
diN0bot
Rush Limbaugh is not an influential individual. He is part of what is
essentially an orchestrated system for conveying (conventional) right-wing
ideology. Ever wonder why different news people during the day hit upon the
same topic? I kid you not.

~~~
unalone
I'd disagree with you there. It's not an orchestrated system. They all just
follow the same blind ideology, and as a result their ideas stem from the same
talking points.

Rush is _extremely_ influential. But then, he's not controversial. A large
part of the country wants exactly what he's peddling: black-and-white
ideology.

