Question about logic fallacy in programming algorithms
0 23 Sep 2018 23:39 by u/Conspirologist
As soon as I have seen how Reddit works, it become obvious to me that the downvoting algorithm is a logic fallacy for a forum. Since those who made Reddit must be pretty intelligent people, and also those who made Voat can't be less intelligent, my question is pretty simple: is it possible that both teams of skilled programmers didn't notice this logic fallacy? Or by putting the question in inquisitor mode: do you think it is possible that both Reddit and Voat owners are using deliberately the downvoting algorithm for eventual manipulation, since it's pretty difficult for intelligent people not noticing this obvious logic fallacy?
TL / DR - Can a programmer be any good without being proficient in logic? If the algorithm is working technically, but the purpose of it is illogical for users, can a skilled programmer not notice the logic fallacy?
28 comments
0 u/Cooking_with_Alf 23 Sep 2018 23:44
You should identify this "logic fallacy" you are speaking of instead of spouting words pretending you know what you are talking about. Anyone can be a programmer, but it takes an intelligent, logically minded engineer to puzzle together good algorithms and even more dedication to test it out and make it clean.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 23 Sep 2018 23:47
If you don't know what I am talking about, maybe logic is not your forte.
0 u/Triceratography 23 Sep 2018 23:57
Dude I'm a programmer, and I answered your question, and I still don't know what you are talking about.
I'm not going to sit here and read the source looking for it, so stop being a cock and tell us what it is.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 00:00
If Up = +1, then 0 = - 1, therefore Down = - 1 is logic fallacy.
0 u/Triceratography 24 Sep 2018 00:10
You may need to be more specific.
I didn't chase through every file because I'm on my phone, but here's a member function of "score" that handles the "no votes" case.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 00:33
This makes sense only in math. According to logic, it's a logic fallacy, because according to cause - effect chain, the downvote is useless, or even harmful. You can use downvote only for fun. As soon as downvote becomes physically harmful by limiting the faculty to post, the logic fallacy becomes obvious.
0 u/Triceratography 24 Sep 2018 00:46
Useless or harmful to what? Spammers? It's supposed to allow users to filter out garbage.
Logic is math and you're not providing enough information for anyone to actually use logic to determine whether your statements are valid.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 00:50
Sorry, but calculation and logic are different. Only formulas in math are based on logic, but the quality of calculation depends on the quality of formulas, which is the product of logic. Anyway, I explained everything in my post above.
0 u/Triceratography 24 Sep 2018 01:08
The above doesn't parse because I have no fucking clue what specific "cause-effect chain" you are talking about, and if I did, I probably would still have no clue where you think a zero is treated as -1 or what, if anything, you think the solution is to the problem that you still haven't convinced me exists in the first place.
This must be how an exceptional programmer like Torvalds feels interacting with the rest of the world.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 11:58
I am talking about the human factor. This is not calculation, this is human interaction, otherwise called the human factor. The logic starts from here.
0 u/notenoughstuff 24 Sep 2018 17:53
Hmmm... are you using two possible states instead of three possible states? Why not have the following possible states:
instead of
?
Of course, I might misunderstand you.
Also, this modelling excludes having both up and down, which I think is correct for our case.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 17:56
I am talking about people manipulating votes. It's about logic. Not math.
0 u/notenoughstuff 24 Sep 2018 18:01
By "logic", do you mean "wisdom", "sense" or "insight"? Possibly the issue being manipulation of people? Or whether a reddit-like that supports downvotes is fundamentally unsustainable and/or too fragile and vulnerable?
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 18:08
Logic is a scientific discipline. Downvoting is a logical fallacy. I am asking if a skilled programmer can allow it by mistake, or if it was made deliberately for improper use by the site owners.
0 u/notenoughstuff 24 Sep 2018 18:14
Isn't logic, at least as a discipline, considered a branch of mathematics?
And in which regard is it a fallacy? For instance, if some comment astroturfs some product somewhere inappropriate, and gets many more downvotes than upvotes, isn't it correct to say that at least in this case the comment got less visibility and thus at least one of the purposes of the downvotes was fulfilled?
0 u/Triceratography 23 Sep 2018 23:47
They can keep a job and produce working things by following patterns made by smarter people.
A strong understanding of logic is only necessary if the code needs to behave predictably in all possible situations, or if you are dealing with low-level code.
Consider a construct like a switch statement. At the end is a default case. If the default behavior breaks nothing, then nobody might ever notice you fucked up.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 23 Sep 2018 23:50
Thanks. You said what I was thinking in a clear and concise way.
0 u/PointsOutIdiots 23 Sep 2018 23:49
You're an idiot.
0 u/Vic_V 23 Sep 2018 23:55
no one knows what the fuck you're talking about. the upvote / downvote system isn't something you can classify as "logical".
0 u/Triceratography 24 Sep 2018 00:32
He said a case with no upvotes and no downvotes wasn't handled, but didn't say where he saw it.
I looked quickly and found it handled in some places using a ternary operator, but who knows whether those are even related to the places he mentioned.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 00:54
First of all, I said "was not implemented", not "handled". Second, I am talking only about downvotes, because upvotes cannot be harmful. Maybe you are a good programmer, but your logic is crippled.
0 u/Triceratography 24 Sep 2018 01:01
This is the only time you've use the word "implemented" in this thread, and there is a corresponding DownRatio function just like the UpRatio function.
0 u/hyperesthesia 24 Sep 2018 05:41
While I agree that down-voting systems are inherently terrible, your post was incomprehensible, you changed subject on a dime, you made massive leaps without any connectives, and you seem to have implied a dormant conspiracy theory.
It's difficult to provide any meaningful commentary or response since your entire post made no fucking sense. But I'll see if I can try, because I'm bored and I like a challenge.
You should elaborate on how it's a "logic" fallacy. I don't see any logical fallacy, at all. The logic holds up perfectly. If you disagree with a post (the first predicate) THEN you may down-vote it (a secondary predicate, forming an inferential relation). In fact, the contra-positive is also true: If you don't down-vote a post, then you may like it.
You've made a really large assumption here and provided no evidence to back it up. Those who made Reddit were businessmen trying to find a way to maximize advertising dollars. Those who made Voat just copied Reddit's form factor without applying their own design intuition.
Why can't they?
Without pointing out where the logical fallacy lies (which you seem to imply is "obvious", but it's not so) it's impossible to answer this question. However it is possible to point out that since Voat merely copied Reddit and was not developed independently, it's not necessary for two individual teams to fail to notice a fallacy. Only the first team needs to fail, and the second team inherits their failures.
What the FUCK is "inquisitor mode"? Is that your way of saying "conspiracy theory mode"?
Manipulation of WHAT? I don't believe that the down-vote system poses a threat of manipulating anything. All it does is give users the ability to ruin their own experience by creating echo chambers.
This is entirely unrelated to the two other entirely unrelated points you've already made. First you started talking about an "obvious" logical fallacy, but never explained what the fallacy was. Then you suggested Reddit and Voat are using down-votes as part of some conspiracy to manipulate the masses but failed to explain how. Now you're asking a general question about programming and formal logic. A leap like this would frighten Evel Knievel.
That said, I would say it's a bit more complicated that than. On the one hand, logic and programming go hand-in-hand. Boolean algebra derives from formal logic and drives all conditional statements. Without the ability to follow steps sequentially to their logical conclusion you can't understand the execution of a process and therefore can't hope to debug it. On the other hand, "logic" is often used to refer to a specific branch of formal logic involving proofs. Just as you don't need to be good at geometry to do algebra, and you don't need to be good at discrete math to do calculus, you also don't need to be good at this particular subset of logic in order to program. It's a very diverse field.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 12:00
I am saying that the downvotng algorithm makes sense only in math. According to logic, it's a logic fallacy, because according to cause - effect chain, the downvote is useless, or even harmful. You can use downvote only for fun. As soon as downvote becomes physically harmful by limiting the faculty to post, the logic fallacy becomes obvious.
0 u/hyperesthesia 24 Sep 2018 18:14
I think you've severely misunderstood the definition of "logical fallacy". If something makes sense mathematically, it's not logically fallacious
Now it could be socially harmful. It could be detrimental to a community. It could be negative in general. That doesn't mean it's a fallacy, it just means it's a bad idea. Giving 3 year old children access to soldering irons is also a bad idea -- but that doesn't mean it's a "logical fallacy". It's just plain dumb.
You also said that the down vote is "physically" harmful. I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a single instance of a person getting bruised, bleeding, breaking bones, or even getting scratched as the result of a down vote. There's no physical harm involved. There's the potential for:
But physical harm? Nah. Can't happen.
That's not to say that down voting is a good thing. As I said before, it creates echo chambers. You develop subverse-culture where a small group of people have a shared set of beliefs and anything that adheres to their beliefs is up voted and anything that runs counter to their beliefs in down voted. Eventually they're swimming in a pool of posts that validate their beliefs and they've closed off all external opinions. But just because down votes are a bad idea, they lead to the division of society, they reduce our ability to empathize with others, and they aide in dehumanizing our opponents -- there's still no logical fallacy.
As there's no logical fallacy, the fallacy hasn't become obvious.
0 u/Conspirologist [OP] 24 Sep 2018 18:18
You don't even know how downvotes work.
0 u/hyperesthesia 24 Sep 2018 20:17
Humor me, then. How do they work?
0 u/roznak 25 Sep 2018 20:05
Your comment does not computer. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Programmers come in all shapes, including stupid ones that do''t even realize that they suck in what they do.