I'm married, and I still have no clue what women want. I have no real clue how anything happened, just like 4 years later I'm married and the 15 year old that still controls my consciousness is stunned and amazed.
The story is on topic. On topic = interesting to the intellectually curious. Whereas this comment is not merely a facile witticism, but of a type the site guidelines explicitly ask users not to make.
It is -- it's a thoughtful and thorough investigation of a perfectly legitimate area of scientific study -- but it also smells like the sort of thing the hormone-drunk adolescents that rule Reddit go nuts for, so surely some people can be forgiven for dismissing it out-of-hand, especially given recent history here.
If we want a community of intelligent, civil posters, asking its citizens to look beyond titles and examine the articles themselves seems like a reasonable expectation.
Since I'm spending a lot of time on 4chan lately as research for an article, I got a fit of giggles when you mentioned the hormone-drunk adolescents that rule...Reddit.
It'd be a better topic if the title wasn't linkbait that encouraged off topic comments. And the article didn't start with a big kiss picture and a statement about making animal porn.
BTW, calling my comment superficial violates your guidelines. It's not civil. It's not an argument. It's an insult.
The problem, though, is that "off-topic" (as judged by the guidelines page) stuff can get voted up. My argument is that if something gets voted up here (legitimately) then it's de facto on-topic, but that other poster disagrees and is wondering how to give feedback on that without breaking the rules.
Why wouldn't they get any comments or upvotes? You just posted a thread about a big spike in new users. There's no guarantee that they have read and taken to heart the guidelines.
Not really, people with high Karma can flag posts and get them taken down. This happens a lot more with politics than other types of controversial topics. Personally I could flag this post, but it's interesting AND novel so IMO it stays.
The bug being the policy of discouraging feedback to commenters/submitters on exactly why their comment/article was down-modded. Meta-discussion, last I checked, was no-no.
Meta-discussion is not needed. You can teach a neural net to dance simply by saying Yes, and No. The problem with saying "you did X wrong here is how you fix it" is many people only hear "Only do Y" where we want any acceptable submission even if it's on juggling (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418460).
What happens is somebody makes a comment, gets downmodded, then wonders why. So they ask (trust me, I've tried this). Their question itself then gets downmodded -- meta discussions not tolerated. So the commenter, who is not psychic, is left with negative feedback from the moderation system without any idea at all what or what not to do in the future.
This idea of treating HN as just a large dataset with contributors simply being data suppliers to train the neural net has some really big limitations. Last I checked, the board was full of human beings, and posting in some fashion approximates the social activity of having a conversation. The further the system strays from the social/linguistic/psychological needs of conversation, the less effective it is as a community facilitator, in my opinion.
Meta-discussion might not be needed by the computer, but it's a natural part of human behavior and to the degree the system does not allow this, the system is broken.
You can see other posts that where up modded. So for the most part you can learn what a good post is by looking at good examples.
So yes you can get down modded for asking but think of it like a Nash Equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) the benefit you can from Meta discussion is at the cost of everyone else who needs to read it and understands the guidelines. Even as it benefits others who don't understand.
I expect if people keep trying to make insightful comments then they can learn what people on HN like. Or if you really don't understand take a karma hit and get some feedback. Just don't think Meta Discussions are without cost. A tiny fraction of the time it's probably, OK but it's extremely corrosive.
PS: It's easy to waste peoples time by saying thinks like "My opinion only" or "I don't mind getting down modded for this" but if we post it people can assume that so such things just clogg up the communication channel.
Either I'm not making my point or you're not receiving it.
I got your point. Data and the "communications channel" trumps the individual. The needs of the group win.
But I already had it. I'm just wondering if any of this is sinking in with you. So far, I think the answer is "no" There seems to be a prevalent opinion that the purpose of HN participants is to provide data, the blander the better.
Real world group discussions are interesting mixes of public and private conversations. Ever sit in a crowded conference room? Ever work in a large group that made significant progress towards collecting and analyzing data, coming up with new and interesting conclusions? It's a balance of individuals and group needs. Either you advance the art of synthesis, not just rating, or your "data" will eventually be scraped and fed into just another larger, better data aggregation system.
It's a simple question, really: either you build systems to accommodate people or you try to redefine people to fit your system. You can only get so far trying to make people fit the system. I've been on here for more than a year. To the degree people are providing active negative feedback (how many HN-is-going-to-heck threads have there been? How many people get downmodded to -20 and never work out why?) I'd think it would be cause for a bit of self-reflection.
Subjectivity or opinions, are what it's all about. The whole thing is opinions. You don't get the magic from simple up-down voting and promoting terseness over humanity.
In fact, you want as much subjectivity as possible. The comm channel can handle it. If a reader is getting bored or seeing too much that turns them off, that's a UI issue, not a poster issue. Critiquing users for acting naturally is not-so-smart.
There are many society's that could be built using the HN code. For now it seems like the combination of Software and Society has produced one of the most interesting websites on the internet. Call it Obama News and the same system software in not going to build the same community. Or PG could change the software and add a private messaging system, but doing so would change the nature of the site and it's society.
You have 3k Karma so clearly you learned how to gain Karma and clearly you like the website / society. But, these are not the types of posts that make people want to come to the site. Meta discussion is like philosophy it attracts the intelligent and leads them in circles.
Karma is a psychological instrument PG could show Karma divided by the number of days after account creation and on the leader board but if he wanted to increase the amount of Karma trolling going on. I suspect that showing his Karma 32029 on the leader board would change the nature of the site. For now the balance seems to work. We don't see every XKCD posted and the political submissions are dieing down. Looking back there has been far less change as the site has grown than you might expect.
If the goal where to make money changing the system to accommodate people might be useful but there is no advertising so it's costing more money as the site grows. You can find several statements that HN is an experiment and I suspect it's also a recruiting tool and part of the vetting process for ycombinator. Which suggests that people who never discover how to get positive Karma are supposed to leave. This is probably a good thing. A funny twist of irony is the site about making money is more interesting because it's not trying to directly make money.
Edit: NM, You win someone up modded the thread so it might be interesting. Anyway, I am going to sleep have a nice night.
What kind of meta discussion is harmful? I'd say none of it. If people don't like a meta discussion, they'll not vote it up, and it thus won't consume the top reading spots.
A tricky issue is that threads are elevated based on the originator's score. But, there are a number of threads where the originator may have a low or negative score, and follow ups have enormous scores. Where should these go?
The scientifically un-rigorous interpretation on my part is that women instinctively lie about sex much more than men. This is quite understandable as a woman's survival in the ancestral environment was most often about how effectively she capitalized on her sex appeal. This would involve pretending to be more aroused in situations where she was expected to be aroused (i.e. an alpha male wants her to be aroused) and not showing signs of arousal in situations where she shouldn't (don't let the alpha male see you lusting after a different male).
Now the fact that women responded to a broader range of pictures than men I have no ideas about. Perhaps it is not an adaptation but merely a side effect of women being more empathetic. Do women have more/more highly reactive mirror neurons? Have any studies been done on this?
May I ask why you don't believe the alternative evolutionary explanation? Forced (to some extent) penetration has been with humanity for a long time, and will likely be with humanity for a long time. It was not until relatively recently that it is generally accepted as a bad thing, and even in our "enlightened" age, there is a great deal of misinformation.
Removing the moral implications, rape is really bad PHYSICALLY unless the act is lubricated (the point the article makes). So a woman needs to be PHYSICALLY ready for sex, even if not EMOTIONALLY or MENTALLY willing.
That leads to a decoupling of mental and sexual desire from physical response.
Call me unPC, but that seems to fit the evidence they present!
I can't really think of a specific example but it seems that a whole host of things about humanity would be different if forced sex was the main method of procreation in the ancestral environment.
Great article, although a little depressing at times. For example, I really didn't know there was a lack of understanding about where desire comes from in women. There was even a paragraph in there that mentioned that even with good relationships, desire is sometimes not guaranteed. As a male, I'd like to think otherwise...but science is science I guess.
A lovely theory that keeps getting roughed up by the facts. People in a relationship are much too interested in signaling to honestly answer that question.
That's why you figure the other person out before you get into the real "relationship", at which point you should know enough to be able to tell them what they're thinking, whether it's in bed or at the grocery store. I have never met a woman too complicated to figure out, given enough time and effort.
It's like a puzzle. A puzzle with contradictory pieces at times, sure. That just makes it more entertaining. This is precisely why I love women, though; the more difficult the puzzle the more fun it is. I'm still searching for the one who can routinely surprise me, preferably in a good way.
Problems with that: people are even more interested in signaling when they're trying to get into a relationship. Once you have a large sunk cost (e.g. announcing that you're together, moving in with each other) it's possible for each side to get away with a little more honesty.
People are very hard to model thoroughly. I hope you're exaggerating in the last sentence of your first paragraph.
I don't think I'm exaggerating, although since I'm just basing it off of what I've been told by previous partners I suppose it's possible they've all been compulsive liars even when I don't ask a question, but this seems to contradict Occam's Razor.
There's never 100% coverage. There are times when women act a certain way and I'll have no clue why or will do something I see as so illogical and completely contradictory to every form of reason that I just flat never see it coming.
As for signaling, my solution has been to just refuse to play the game. I'll flirt because it's fun, but I make no attempts to actually figure out if they're interested. This is probably why I am abysmal at actually picking up women in the first place and why I never seem to notice they're interested until they're suddenly making out with me.
Once that hurdle has been overcome, it's pretty easy though. Just because they're more interested in bullshit signaling doesn't mean they're going to refuse to answer questions or lie. Particularly, I've never met a women who wouldn't honestly answer questions regarding optimization of their pleasure. To do otherwise would be kinda silly.
Also, I think this awesome quote is worthy of this thread:
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away
reason and accountability.
Summary? The description of the experiment in the beginning sounded interesting, but then the article got carried away a lot. I guess the author wanted to milk the subject for all he (or she?) could.
Only guessing, but I expect that the conclusion of the article is "no idea"...
1) Women desire emotional intimacy
2) Women desire to be desired on more of an instinctual level
Seems that these two forces, seemingly contradictory are just the ego vs. id. The ego desires intimacy, an emotional connection etc., and that leads to sexual desire. However the id, on the more narcissist side, wants to be wanted or "sought after" on more of a primal note. I don't think this is a contradiction at all. The id controls desire throughout much of our evolution, however, because long-term partnering has selective advantages by being better for the survival of the offspring, the ego side develops also which wants more of that emotional connection. This is not really that hard. The woman's ego wants emotional connection, the woman's id wants a primal connection of being desired. In short, the woman wants Richard Gere. :-) (Speaking as a gay man anyway so maybe I'm projecting my own psychology into it, lol!)
