This whole exchange is becoming a pretty good case study in midwit psychology.

First, the idiot will start with a narrow definition, and then find an analogy that fits his narrow views of reality and definitions. Then he will dig himself further into his own grave by mistaking the analogy as proof that his definition is the only correct one.

Then, when someone points out that the real-world situation is more complicated than their little box allows, instead of questioning the box, they reinforce it, and thus double down on what I like to call idiotological reasoning.

Pay close attention dear readers. Once a midwit has invested enough ego into a distinction, changing the definition feels like losing the argument. So the original assumption quietly becomes an axiom.

“I define investment in Hive as X.”

“Why?”

“Because investment in Steam isn't Y.”

Excellent. We've gone from discussing what constitutes an investment to defending a taxonomy nobody asked for. Yet, NOOBbody said developing an app on Hive means you literally bought HIVE with every dollar spent.

The question is whether spending substantial capital and years of labor building within an ecosystem can reasonably be described as investing in that ecosystem, but once the tunnel vision kicks in, anything outside the chosen definition becomes “not an investment” by decree.

The funniest part is that the midwit will defend the definition harder than examining the actual argument. Classic trap.

The smarter move would be to step back and ask, “Wait, am I actually proving my point, or am I just getting better at defending the premise I started with?”

That's usually where the midwit discovers the tunnel he's been digging. but that rarely happens.

_{Posted via HiveSuite}