You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The Currency of Steemit Isn't Steem Power, STEEM, or SBD

in #steemit4 years ago

While the post is right on the money, in terms of what it takes (proper relations / networking), on an ideal level it's a step back from absolute meritocracy.

If, say, friends vote friends, then good content by people who have less friends => don't get the same. So, in a way, that's creating a "need" to "slurp" others, "connect", "get in the proper circles", etc etc.

Sort:  

True. I've struggled with my idealistic, hopeful perception of reality where everything is a meritocracy contrasted with what we actually see in a world run by cronyism, greed, and back-door deals.

I want to believe the world is one way, but often when I step back, I realize it's just another flavor of wanting the world to be the way I want it to be. Some would prefer it to be different where their people skills trump my programmer skills (as an example). I think the openness of blockchain gives us a glimpse of what's possible. Hopefully we can create a great example here of balancing both words of idealism and reality.

On a certain level there are "penalties" associated with the use of non-meritocratic ways. Whatever we do consciously, the subconscious is observing and processing it.

For example, if I steal, the subconscious sees that and concludes "If I'm stealing then I'm useless to create wealth on my own - otherwise I wouldn't be stealing". And this lodges a self-limiting suggestion on a subconscious level that then "blocks" my expanded potential and instead demotes me to a parasitic mentality.

Likewise, if I pride myself for my ancestors, the history of my nation, the success of a sports team which I am aligned with, what am I imprinting? That since I'm trying to pump self-value from something that I didn't do, then I'm not very able to give value to myself on my own = I'm useless.

In a similar manner, if I try to increase my success through networking, the subconscious will observe that and say "well... if I'm going down that route, this means that I can't make it on my own - otherwise, obviously, I wouldn't be doing it with others/through others".

Most of us have no clue on how this mechanism is working and thus our decisions are based on a simple game theory on which decision brings the best outcome at any given time. We balance the potential risks and rewards and make the choice that will bring the best combo. What's absent during our decision making progress is the hidden cost of our subconscious imprints. These kind of subconscious admissions (which are automatically generated based on our conscious thoughts and actions) are very powerful both in limiting and expanding our human potential.

If they aren't factored properly (and few people are even aware of their existence) one may be making what appears the best possible choice but in reality the hidden cost may involve some kind of self-crippling that goes entirely unnoticed.

Thank you for sharing this idea! The concept of subconscious imprints is new to me and it surprisingly makes a lot of sense. It is that mysterious missing brick of "irrational" behavior, which limits the applications of game theory.

Very interesting analysis. Have you also factored in our nature as a social/tribal species? I would argue there are also deeply rooted evolutionary / biological responses that are somewhat primitive and reward "going with the crowd." Networking could be seen as a personal limitation, as you described, but it could also be seen as something rewarded by our primitive nature as providing a safer outcome for the survival of our genes, given the strength and protection that comes from being part of a larger group.

But maybe I'm off on a tangent a bit. I like many of your points about the subconscious cost of our decisions and the cognitive dissonance they create. For me, it's as simple as trying to create the world we all want to live in.

Yes it is factored-in. There are penalties in doing so. But going with the crowd has another dimension as well.

At our core and heart, we all want to be loved because we understand that this is the natural state of being (=getting loved) and anything else is painful. The mind translates this want/need into "acceptance". So the social strategies go like "if I want love, I must be accepted... so my social strategies must revolve around getting acceptance" - and then strategies are devised to do precisely that (some times going with the crowd, or even against it - but in a way where the individual wants to prove he is superior to the crowd and thus worthy of even more recognition which then translates as acceptance and is sublimely expected to bring love).

You see teenagers, for example, adopting a fake persona... language, mannerisms, etc... why? Because they think if I'm cool, I'll be more "accepted" and this is sublimely equated with receiving love. And then you have serious distortions where the very pure motive to get love can end up with things like "let's do this X or Y bad thing which is cool"... But they don't understand how and why their actions originate... (now I've gone off quite a bit)...

Arguably, meritocracy is on the same platform as (currently tried forms of) communism. Solid idea. Practical? Not so much.

I do think the key part of a social network is the social aspect and the relations you build, and yes, some are more equal than others in their social skills or the opportunities they're given.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.22
TRX 0.02
BTC 11568.77
ETH 390.46
SBD 1.06