Let's get down to business, I have 2685 posts and 16 likes and Tiassa has 33551 posts and 407 likes. My likability is: 1 like per 167.8 posts Tiassa's likability is: 1 like per 82.4 posts That makes me twice less likable person than Tiassa. Correct? Correct. But does that make me twice less trustworthy person? Because who wants to hear the truth when sweet illusion can cloud your eyes? Basically the discussion is whether a likable person is necessarily a trustworthy person or just a sweet-talker.
Generalisations are dangerous because they are generally unreliable. I think you need a different way to judge. Alex
I don't think you can infer much from likes on a forum such as this. However receiving "likes" does not say a person has a likeable personality, merely that he or she has said something that other people agree with or appreciate, strongly enough to indicate this by pressing the button. This is not the same thing at all. If you have received fewer likes/post than someone else, it means you do not so often say things that others agree with or appreciate. Oddly enough, based on a quick glance at the stats it looks as if Toad is the winner on this score and I come second! Regarding trust, again I would not like to equate the above with trustworthiness. For all I know, Toad may be doing time in Wormwood Scrubs! As for me........... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well that post got a like from me, so you obviously got something in your character going on for you.
I do not need to judge. I try not to put myself in a position where I need to trust someone and find I am then not disappointed or let down. Alex
"Likes" on a forum simply means someone liked the post - has nothing to do with the person who made the post. I can tell you from personal experience in the real world, the likability of a person has nothing to do with that person's trustworthiness. I've met a lot of very likable liars.
Indeed. And I have met a number of rather stubborn and difficult people (often Dutchmen - I worked for Shell) who I would trust with my life.
I'll say 'no'. Not 'necessarily'. But as far as I'm concerned, likable people are 'typically' trustworthy. That's because perceived truthfulness is one of the qualities that I personally find important in making assessments of likability. But people that I find likable aren't necessarily always telling the truth, since they might be making an error about what the facts are, or I might be making an error in judging their truthfulness, or I might find the other person likable for other reasons. I'm not sure that 'likes' on Sciforums have anything to do with likability in real-life. They are reactions to particular posts. My impression is that most 'likes' appear in contexts of heated arguments and ego-battles and represent a way for people to take sides on matters of opinion as opposed to fact. Likes seem to primarily be a function of the perceived agendas of those making posts and where they line up on controversial issues.
This is a ridiculous premise. Hitting the "like" button does mean the person is necessarily "likable". I means that someone agreed with their post. It also has no correlation with "trustworthy".
The "like" system here should really be scrapped, for the simple reason that at least one Idiot has used it other then what it was originally implemented for. Besides that, obviously it does no more than say [when used correctly] that another person agrees with your comments, which of course can be put down in another post anyway. As the poster Seattle before me has said, what the OP is inferring is obviously a ridiculous premise anyway. My views for what they are worth on who would be or who would not be trustworthy on this forum, generally rests with the content/meaning of a person's post or thread. One premise that turns me off are extreme views either end of the spectrum, particularly those views expressed in politics and religion, and when that baggage is carried over into posts on science. Recommendation: [for what it is worth] Every month the mods and admins form an opinion as to the most enlightening, revealing thread/post of the month, and perhaps another opinion, on the most hair brained ridiculous thread/post of the month. I'm not sure which so far this month is the most enlightening, but surely the most hair brained ridiculous thread would be that one started about Obama's dog and some girl in the whitehouse. Such an inference in that thread, would in my humble opinion, make that person easily the most untrustworthy, unlikeable and ugly person for this month.
Likeable is subjective and based on one's own personal opinion and values. That's why there are people you will like, be neutral or dislike and vice versa. As for 'likes' on forum posts, it is just agreeing entirely or mostly with a post content and nothing more.
