Curious if anyone has any suggestions for systematically measuring how reasoned, fact-based, knowledgeable, biased, on-topic, etc — one online community is relative to other online communities?
In your post, you say you want a biased community, but that seems incongruous with the rest of the items you're looking for in a community. Perhaps you meant "unbiased" -- could you clarify this?
There is a word in sanskrit satya, which means truth-seeking. Satya is one of a handful of ideas forming the basis of a practice called the eight limbs of yoga. The idea is that thought precedes action, and if you don't clear your mind, you undermine your yoga practice. Put another way, you don't receive the full benefits of yoga if you're distracted by competing desires. I think truth-seeking is an incredibly worthwhile goal.
Having said that, I have never heard of a perfectly informed person let alone a community. No choice is neutral, therefore everything a person says or thinks or does is opinionated.
However, I must admit my own ignorance. If you continue to seek such a community, I would be interested in hearing the outcome of such a search. Maybe I could learn something too :) Thank you for sharing!
Understand your point about biased vs unbiased, guess I just didn’t intend to limit the patterns to being only positive or negative, just anything that’s measurable that fits within comparable terms.
And yes, of course, this is more about being more or less of X — not being 100% of X.
To be honest, core reason I presented question is that it’s not uncommon for any community to see itself as the best community; HN of course being no exception. Problem is, without an objective measure, how can any community become less wrong?
While seeking to be less wrong is a worthwhile goal, it is but one of many things to pursue. The question arises about why does a community need to be less wrong. What happens if you don't course correct? Sometimes, it's better just to let things happen.
Given two communities, one who is intentionally trying to be less wrong, one that is not — they will both feel like they are less wrong than the other, but one will actually be less wrong.
Scientific community generally speaking compared to non-scientific communities would not only be an example of this, but also shows the benefits of such practices, especially over extended durations.
6 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 27.9 ms ] threadhttps://tech.fb.com/artificial-intelligence/2022/07/how-ai-c...
There is a word in sanskrit satya, which means truth-seeking. Satya is one of a handful of ideas forming the basis of a practice called the eight limbs of yoga. The idea is that thought precedes action, and if you don't clear your mind, you undermine your yoga practice. Put another way, you don't receive the full benefits of yoga if you're distracted by competing desires. I think truth-seeking is an incredibly worthwhile goal.
Having said that, I have never heard of a perfectly informed person let alone a community. No choice is neutral, therefore everything a person says or thinks or does is opinionated.
However, I must admit my own ignorance. If you continue to seek such a community, I would be interested in hearing the outcome of such a search. Maybe I could learn something too :) Thank you for sharing!
And yes, of course, this is more about being more or less of X — not being 100% of X.
To be honest, core reason I presented question is that it’s not uncommon for any community to see itself as the best community; HN of course being no exception. Problem is, without an objective measure, how can any community become less wrong?
While seeking to be less wrong is a worthwhile goal, it is but one of many things to pursue. The question arises about why does a community need to be less wrong. What happens if you don't course correct? Sometimes, it's better just to let things happen.
Scientific community generally speaking compared to non-scientific communities would not only be an example of this, but also shows the benefits of such practices, especially over extended durations.