Have you noticed how the people who "tell it how it is" are always negative? It is an interesting position as they talk about truth, but don't actually have much to offer in the way of positive things to do, just undercut what is being done. I guess they want a participation trophy.
Here you go 🏆 As long as you feel good about yourself.
But, that is the funny thing perhaps as from at least the outside looking in, the types of people who are always negative do not seem to actually feel good about themselves. Perhaps the reason for their outlook isn't because it is truth, it is because they themselves feel a certain way and justify it by fitting a reality to their emotional experience.
A lot of Finland's suicides are blamed on the darkness of the winter, but supposedly most happen in the spring when the weather is warming up and sunny. The reasoning is that during the dark times people can justify their depression by saying "it is just the weather and lack of light", but once the conditions change and they still feel the same, they have to look in the mirror.
The process is likely similar on Steem as people's personal emotional position heavily effects their perspective of the world. If a person is struggling in real life, perhaps they are suffering from illness, depression or the viral internet disease, loneliness, are they more likely to see the positives of the platform, or focus on the negatives?
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things that need to be addressed on the platform and plenty of target points for criticism, but the incessant whining isn't going to solve any of them. When it comes to community interaction and engagement, I don't see how the hyper sensitivity to the negatives is going to attract or retain anyone on the platform.
Speaking of confidence,, if a man approaches a woman in a bar and says, "I have a crappy job, my wife left me, my children hate me, I am not a good person, I have a drinking problem and a small penis, if I could still get it up that is - can you buy me a drink?"
Of course, with the right delivery...
Maybe it is just when people are online as for the most part, the incentives for interaction are heavily skewed toward the negative, emotional, outrage and drama. It is possible that a person can actually get more engagement from the negative as they are able to attract others who feel like them and who are also looking for justification of their emotional state.
But, there is saturation in the outrage market and many participants with a near news-like 24-hour cycle, meaning that it is unlikely that one person is going to be able to hold the attention of the crowd for long before the next topic overshadows the last - often with a ramping up of the sensitivity and outrage dials. Trying to keep up in the game of negativity has got to be exhausting and definitely not conducive for a productive or creative mindset.
We are what we eat and that includes what we consume via our feeds, but more than that, we start to see what we eat everywhere. On Steem there is a lot of various scams and less than community-orientated behavior, and if spending a lot of time in the sludge, it is easy to see it everywhere, while blacking out the other sides of the platform.
It is much like the example of a person buying a new car and while prior they didn't see many or any of the same type, post purchase it seems like every man and his dog are driving one. It isn't that they have suddenly taken to the streets, it is just that the purchase makes it personal and orders the attention to look for familiar.
Steem is great for someone like me who is somewhat disconnected from the emotional reactions and responses, but not immune. This means that for the most part, I can spend a fair amount of time in the negative aspects without having it make me jaded on the positives and future. It is interesting that many people believe I shill and turn a blind eye to the negatives in order to have a positive outlook, but this is not the case.
For me, I spend a lot of time in the negatives and have a positive outlook for the future of Steem despite seeing them. It isn't ignorance, it is the understanding that there is no such thing as perfect and the path is even murkier due to the decentralization. I think if most people had startup experience and saw all of the nonsense, risk and failure that goes into the making a successful business, they would probably have an outlook on Steem that was closer in fit to mine.
But, most do not and many who do, only have limited experience and visibility. It is easy to stay narrow and nitpick and it is easier still to know a tiny fraction but believe all that is needed to know is known and use that limited knowledge to criticize. Maybe it is human nature in the same way that there are racists in the world who have never met the object of their hatred, but still believe their position is justified.
All they know is how they feel.
But, feeling and knowing whether those feelings are legitimate and accurate to circumstance are two different things. And, in a world that has encouraged showing emotion over emotional control, it is only natural that the attack first, avoid questions later approach is the go to reaction. And with the speed of the information cycle, they can move on to the next seeded outrage without any kind of followup or reflection.
Who knows, perhaps Steem is all a joke and it will go nowhere and die a death by a thousand cuts, but that need not be the outcome ether. This is the risk consideration that people need to make, but your evaluation and relative willingness to take the leap doesn't mean you are correct.
Some are waiting to say "I told you so" in regards to a positive or negative outcome on Steem. For me, I have better things to do in either scenario.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
