# Treatise on Likes and Likability



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

*LIKES AND LIKABILITY*
*The meaning of the meaninglessness of the like-arbitrated post-value assessment system*

By Couchie Potato​
This treatise was (divinely?) inspired when I thought a thought: Is the increasing prevalence of Talk Classical's (TC's) like-arbitrated post-value assessment system responsible for any or all of the biased quality perceptivity, the demotivation of (insightful) contrarians, the declining relevance of organically developing discussion to the subject at hand, the reduction in quality and quantity of postage, or the (subsurface) rise of TC's insurrectionary anti-moderation movement?

Some would say that overeager "like"-society (distinguished, although not necessarily exclusively, from _liked_ society) can be blamed for a partial collapse of TC's institution of (predominantly) written language-based interaction. Consider a post (or posts) that has (or have) been liked (We will assume by statistics that it is one of mine). Is the post liked because it is good, or is it good because it has been liked? This is the classic problem of cause and effect (_cum hoc ergo propter hoc_). It is critical here to note the relationship of commensalism between likes and posts: a post can exist without a like, but a like can not like a post that doesn't exist (more precisely, a like-_originator_ can not like a nonexistent post) A like therefore _relies_ on a post for its own existence. A post yet to be liked exists in a purgatory-like (purgatory as it relates to the 'Latin Rite' of the Holy Roman Catholic Church) state of hyperspacial existence (or arguably, _nonexistence_ from a materialistic perspective) until it is _observed_. I would like to emphasize (emphatically, mind you) the importance of this first observation. The first observer is inherently also the first potential like-originator. Notice the power inherent in this role: the first potential like-originator has the power to forever (although irreversibly, if he choses with the "unlike feature (further increasing his power (what he doth do, doth he undo (if he doth choose (albeit this action is rare (the exception, if 'liked' by accident (this adds an important stochastic element to what is to follow this aside (the author here apologizes for the excessive parenthesis (and realizes he exasperates the issue with this apology (it's unlikely at this point that I will even add the correct number of parentheses (the author apologizes for this as well (assume (in the event that it is necessary) after this here clump of parentheses, the non-parenthesized body text resumes))))))))))) alter the perceptual existence of the post itself for all whom follow him (now I remember what I was talking about). What are the motivations of the like-originator. Consider the following scenarios:

1. The like-originator is a friend of the post-originator
2. The like-originator is the enemy of the post-originator
3. The like-originator can't read but gives a like to give the impression he can
4. The like-originator gives a like because the post is long and looks good on superficial appearance (let's hope) and the like-originator can't be bothered to actually read the post.
5. The like-originator likes giving likes
6. The like-originator likes the content of the post

We observe that only 6 is a valid reason for dispensing a like, however, there is debate as to the frequency and prevalence of corrupted likes stemming from 1-5. 1, 3, 4, and 5 are self-evident and will not be discussed here. 2 is more complex. Consider that situation 2 is essentially the inverse of situation 1. However instead of "liking" the post, the like-originator (or would-be like-originator, let's call him (or her (probably her actually (not misogynistic, just a realist))) the like-_nonoriginator_) purposely withholds a like from a post deserving a like. She makes a post immediately following completely ignoring the subsequent post. For purposes of clarity, we can label this event, aptly, the "antilike". So the like-nonoriginator administers an antilike (note that at this point the like-nonoriginator could be called the antilike-originator for purposes of efficiency (efficiency and clarity in communication are always at the forefront of my literary goals)). Notice that although such an event could theoretically occur (and in practice, does) outside of a like-arbitrated post-value assessment system, it only has relevance when a like-arbitrated post-value assessment system is in place. Because if the antilike originator found a post, even for a corrupted reason, to be unworthy of a like, then this creates the mindset in future readers that the post is not worth a like, or possibly even reading. Inversely (in the cases of 1, 3-5, but not 6) the action of marking a post as liked increases the the propensity that future readers will regard the post with an inflated value judgement (in the case that the post is bad). Hence we can not even be said to be the sole authors of our own posts as our posts are inescapably altered in value by subsequent like or antilike-originators (we can call the combined subset the likeantilike-originators). The non-voluntary nature of being a likeantilike-originator ensures that everyone wishing to partake in the discussion either accidentally or purposely (depending on their consciousness of the likeantilike phenomenon) affects the value-judgements of the person immediately prior. Is this phenomenon linear or nonlinear? Oh, **** it.

The author, at this point, got bored of the affair.

Long story short, the like-arbitrated post-value assessment system is inexorably flawed and doomed to bring Talk Classical crashing down into meaningless chaos.

...

Q.E.D.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Cool.

[filler text]


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

HerlockSholmes has demonstrated an antilike. My response *also* an antilike of HerlockSholmes' post. We have yet to model the behaviour to determine whether this behaviour is linear or nonlinear, but we expect that regardless the prediction of meaningless chaos will be shown to be valid.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Cool.

[filler text]


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Cool.
> 
> [filler text]


Tell me, Couchie: Why did I decide to "like" this post I quoted from Herlock?


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Couchie, Very good send-up {?}. Even if you were serious, I would disagree with your premise, but give you a like anyway. And this proves what, exactly {according to your hypothesis, of course}. Oh, wait, I think I figured out the answer: I would fall under # 6 of your treatise, thereby disproving your final conclusion about TC crashing into chaos should it maintain its "like system". 
In any event, great post! :clap:


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

And why did I decide to like the post where Lukecash12 asks you about why he decided to like my post?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

My theory does not have (or claim to have) a component useful for estimating the motives that bring about likes and antilikes, only a statement that they are often corrupt. Indeed this is one of the most troubling issues of the whole affair.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Indeed, this is very serious business.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Indeed, this is very serious business.


Without a doubt! ut:


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Tell me, Couchie: Why did I decide to "like" this post I quoted from Herlock?


#3, probably.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

This reminds me of a friend's attempt to get into postmodernism (it didn't go well (I don't mean me (I know what "a friend" usually means but I'm serious (rock lobster pear vasectomy))))


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Yay, go #4, go! :trp:



Oh, it's not a poll?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Couchie, do we need to have another discussion about not publicly venting your envy? I can even see that you're green in the face.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

7. The like-originator is trying to even out her/his received likes with her/his likes given (out of gratitude? guilt? orderliness?)


----------



## BarackZero (Oct 1, 2011)

I introduced myself to a receptionist at a nice office about ten years ago. She was young and looked bored so I thought I would give her a science lesson, on the wonderful aspects of God's creation. I pointed to her computer and informed her that marvelous as it was, her DNA stores information 40 trillion times more compactly than the computer's microchips. 40 trillion times.

As fast as her cable may download information, the human optic nerve transmits information to the human brain at 4 gigabytes per second. The eye can see a single photon of energy, the smallest amount of energy in the universe.

Just then, an interloper interrupted me from my left. He had the temerity to say, "There is no such thing as energy. Show me energy."

I pointed up to the fluorescent light above me and said, "See that?"

"Light is energy?" he said.

"Bingo," I replied, continuing on, "I'll bet you majored in philosophy in college, didn't you?"

The smoke started coming out of his ears, and his lips moved, but he wasn't making any sounds.

Then he piped up again, "It was an easy guess given the nature of our discussion."

"Well if it was so easy, you guess my major and I'll give you $100.

He asked his associate to help him and they hazarded the guess of economics.

Fools! What do economists know about science anyway. 

And so my guess is that Couchie majored in philosophy, and if not philosophy, some equally vapid subject.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The above post begs deletion.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

BarackZero said:


> And so my guess is that Couchie majored in philosophy, and if not philosophy, some equally vapid subject.


I majored in Biochemical Engineering. Personally I think the field of philosophy is extremely interesting and has a lot of merit. Science and philosophy are intrinsically linked and dependent upon each other so I'm surprised you scoff at it.

[edit] Oh. I see you're a creationist. So god's magic > science & philosophy. This post took quite a while to write and I don't want it to get locked, so please be nice.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

BarackZero said:


> I introduced myself to a receptionist at a nice office about ten years ago. She was young and looked bored so I thought I would give her a science lesson, on the wonderful aspects of God's creation. I pointed to her computer and informed her that marvelous as it was, her DNA stores information 40 trillion times more compactly than the computer's microchips. 40 trillion times.
> 
> As fast as her cable may download information, the human optic nerve transmits information to the human brain at 4 gigabytes per second. The eye can see a single photon of energy, the smallest amount of energy in the universe.
> 
> ...


Ouch, Couchie. I bet that really stung you to the quick, eh?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

samurai said:


> Ouch, Couchie. I bet that really stung you to the quick, eh?


It was actually quite a nicely written anecdote, he spent time on it.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

BarackZero said:


> I introduced myself to a receptionist at a nice office about ten years ago. She was young and looked bored so I thought I would give her a science lesson, on the wonderful aspects of God's creation. I pointed to her computer and informed her that marvelous as it was, her DNA stores information 40 trillion times more compactly than the computer's microchips. 40 trillion times.
> 
> As fast as her cable may download information, the human optic nerve transmits information to the human brain at 4 gigabytes per second. The eye can see a single photon of energy, the smallest amount of energy in the universe.
> 
> ...


What does this have to do with, well, anything?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Couchie said:


> *LIKES AND LIKABILITY*
> *The meaning of the meaninglessness of the like-arbitrated post-value assessment system*
> 
> By Couchie Potato​
> ...


Make likes anonymous to both the poster and everyone else and allow users to like their own post; problem solved, the economy of likes destroyed.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The Fundamental Flaw ~ or ~ Why I Cannot Care:

Talk Classical does not recognize or provide a 'dislike' option.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

BarackZero said:


> As fast as her cable may download information, the human optic nerve transmits information to the human brain at 4 gigabytes per second. The eye can see a single photon of energy, the smallest amount of energy in the universe.


I know that post was old and this member probably isn't around anymore, but I have three things:
1. Modern fiber-optic networking can provide bandwidths much, much greater than the 4 GB/s you mention. (Male ejaculation would have been a better example of natural high bandwidth data transfer.)
2. The cone cells in an eye, while sensitive to a single photon, are not sensitive equally across all frequencies, and this sensitivity comes at the cost of image resolution and image change. Furthermore, it takes the simultaneous activation of multiple rod cells (estimates between 11 and 45) for a visual signal to be registered in the brain.
3. A photon is not a unit of energy, but the particle which carries the electromagnetic force. Human rod cells are insensitive to wavelengths under 640nm, equal to 1.938eV of energy. On the other hand, some man-made instruments display much greater sensitivity. For example: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.2164.pdf


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Couchie, you should insert some German terms in your essay and it will look quite Wagnerian


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

BarackZero said:


> I introduced myself to a receptionist at a nice office about ten years ago. She was young and looked bored so I thought I would give her a science lesson, on the wonderful aspects of God's creation. I pointed to her computer and informed her that marvelous as it was, her DNA stores information 40 trillion times more compactly than the computer's microchips. 40 trillion times.
> 
> As fast as her cable may download information, the human optic nerve transmits information to the human brain at 4 gigabytes per second. The eye can see a single photon of energy, the smallest amount of energy in the universe.
> 
> ...


Judging from this style of writing, which seems somewhat Nietzschean, I would guess that BarackZero majored in philosophy.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Great thread :lol: I am glad it was resurrected!


----------

