The reputation fallacy

Here at Steemit, reputation is very important. Or so I hear. I don't really know. I don't really understand where it comes from but have read that if content quality is high and people find it valuable, a high reputation follows. I am not sure about this explanation at all but since it is group voting based (?), I assume that the group decides on what is quality or not. And therefore what is valuable.

If someone can comment on (or write a post and tag me please) exactly how, where, why the reputation system works, that'd be great. From what I have found, the details are a little sketchy and I think since it is apparently a large part of the platform in regards to quality and trust, I think it should be pretty clear cut for every member early on.

This post is not about Steemit though.

Besides Steemit, our reputation precedes us everywhere we go and if it doesn't, our first impressions will begin to create one for us. We are told that we should develop and keep a good reputation and surround ourselves with others that are also held in high esteem. This makes sense since a good reputation opens doors and gets buy-in to ideas, even before they are presented. With a good reputation, people are willing to listen.

A bad reputation however, and ears get closed but, mouths open wide. Without hearing a word, a bad reputation can be met with incredible amounts of hostility. In some US universities recently, I have heard reports that some potentially very intelligent speakers with controversial views were disinvited, barricaded out and attacked. Met with outrage, before they even spoke. 

Aren't universities the place for controversial views to be heard and considered? Things have definitely changed. I wonder what the likes of Plato and Aristotle would say about such developments in discussion. Or lack of discussion. Do they sit there 2500 years later and say to each other, "All our hard work..."?   

Anyway, I digress. Reputation. It is built from the opinions of others based on how they interpret what they know about you. What you say, how you dress, what you look like, your car, shoes... It is basically just a judgement of perceived character traits and material items found acceptable or not that is held in the mind of the person judging. In fact, they need not know anything firsthand about you at all, they could have heard about you from someone else who could have installed the judgement about you, in them, based on their own views. Pretty awesome.

So, this important reputation, possibly based on very little or not even correct information can help a person get acceptance without actually having to be there. Acceptance via proxy. Cool. Of course, to maintain the level of acceptance one must constantly live up to the expectations the reputation implies. And, because it is born from constantly changing opinions and desires, it is a very finicky position indeed. One small misstep can lead to a large dent in reputation.

To make matters worse, there are mixed signals being sent out in regards to this. 'Be yourself, who cares what others think, accept yourself for who you are' kinds of statements are thrown around contradicting the ones that support reputation. Well unless, who you truly are and will always be is what everyone unbendingly accepts and always will.

So be myself and risk my reputation or be what people want me to be and have a good reputation but massive internal conflicts? Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. The problem is that as reputation has value in the eyes of the group, the group rewards it with attention and various offerings. This means that in order to have many of the enjoyable things in life, you need people to like you. Well, like is not the right word, respect might be a better fit.

But, as they say, respect is earned. Which implies one has to do something to get it. What that something is is generally either what the group finds valuable or, be so brilliant at something that no matter how uncomfortable the group is with you, they have to give you credit. Credit equals some kind of currency to spend, right?

One path is easier day to day but is most likely leading to a lifetime of conflicts inside and out, the other can be amazingly difficult and can consume several lifetimes if given the opportunity. The second is also more likely to connect with passions and people that will support to bring out the best version of you and development of ideas possible. The first is likely to get fifteen minutes of fame before being tossed out the window.

The second also signals to the group, 'I will do what I do regardless of you'.

Respect. 

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]