Half a mind and decisions made

in #steem5 years ago

I always find it interesting how little some people who should probably know better, understand about the ecosystem. Lately, I have been getting downvoted by a couple of large stakeholders (their right to do as they please) who seem to think that downvoting burns STEEM. This is not the case at all.

Basically, downvoting is the inverse of upvoting. Upvoting allocates Steem from the pool and earmarks it for distribution 7 days later, whereas downvoting takes what is already (or potentially could be as a downvote can be applied before anything is added) earmarked and returns it to the pool for redistribution. Just like in the movies, No STEEM was harmed in the downvoting process. To destroy or what is often referred to as, "burning" Steem, it has to be sent to @null.

It is good for everyone to recognize that no matter how much stake someone has, it does not make them an authority on how the system operates at a functional level. It also doesn't indicate their intelligence, looks, decision making ability or whether they have the ability to control their emotions. This is good to remember if one is looking for direction or advice, be careful who you choose as your teachers. Running a school, doesn't make you informed or skilled.

OI000139 1.jpg

When it comes to the basics of the way Steem functions, I am quite confident, but I am not overly confident once getting into the technical details. One example was the other day in a post where I gave a hypothetical about buying 1 million STEEM to live off to pay rent instead of a mortgage, and a couple people didn't quite grasp the numbers and thought it would require Self-voting. I then discovered that one of the people didn't know how curation worked - neither do I.

Well, of course I know how curation works at a basic level, but once the numbers of the convergent curve and vote stacking come into play, I can't do the calculations in my head, nor on paper. But, I don't need to in order to manage my personal behaviors. What I do is work with heuristics.

Here is a definition:

A heuristic technique, or a heuristic for short, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect or rational, but which is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision.

I am observational in my approach to life and understand enough about human behavior that we work off the stories we hold, not the reality. While I do believe there is a "truth", I take the approach that it is impossible for us to know it, let alone know it for all things that influence us and all the ways those things interact with each other dynamically. Essentially, we have to work off the stories we hold and do the best we can with what we know, which is imperfect and limited as knowledge always is.

Some people will argue this and in a narrow form (2+2=4) it could be that we know the truth, but once the scope is widened to cover all influencing factors, no perfect visibility is possible. While 2+2=4, at is the mathematical equation necessary to solve the economic problems of society while still providing the conditions for humanity to progress peacefully? The math must be there somewhere, right?

Everyone works on heuristics of some kind and while I do the best I can for me, another person will do something altogether different. For example, my reaction to getting downvoted at whatever level it happens to be is to ignore it and move on, whereas someone else might rage quit, or if they have stake, go out and flag others in revenge. That is okay, we all have to live with our actions, including the ones that affect others.

The beauty of a decentralized environment is that essentially everyone is able to take their own lessons into practice and behave as they see fit. Each will have to live with the consequences. The code of Steem applies to all, however how people use it is going to affect outcomes as are all of the invisible algorithms that run at the social level. Technically, it should be mathematically predict every human reaction, but that is never going to be precise as there are far too many unknown variables in play.

When it comes to the downvotes, some people believe that they harm the ecosystem because it makes people feel bad, but that is not the case at all. They may however make some people feel bad, but their emotions are theirs, your are yours, mine are mine. Emotions are a personal reaction to stimulus and believing everyone reacts the same is nonsensical.

For example, @flysky and @dobartim are the ones downvoting me and a few others as often as they can, and they probably do this because they think they are inflicting some kind of pain or creating discomfort. I can only speak for myself, but it has so far had no effect on my behavior or feelings at all, because not only have I been flagged many times before, but I also understand how the system works and I am a proponent of the downvoting pool. They can downvote me all they want - and it will cost them. Yes, it will cost them in curation, but it will also cost them in their reputation on the platform and possibly the future value of the Steem they hold.

As I see it, downvoting is the behavior of someone looking out for Steem, but that downvoting has to be used to make Steem better, in the same way that upvoting should be. The self-voting on crap should of course be discouraged, as should the buying of votes on crap. Poor use of upvoting and downvoting will have platform and personal implications, for example, by reducing engagement on Steem or, looking like a dick. And remember, Don't be a dick.

while I find the platform highly interesting from many perspectives, I do not think everyone holds the same opinion with many only interested in the possibility of financial gains or, the way it makes them feel. Steem has been labelled a social experiment and I agree, even though I do not think it is a very well planned experiment. Instead, it is more of the process of heuristic learning, trial and error, practical application and observation.

It is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect or rational.

Social interaction is messy, but such is life.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

Onboarding

Sort:  

So much truth. Steem is a social experiment that is mostly about "heuristic learning, trial and error and practical application and observation." That describes it beautifully. And if you understand that one thing, it will give you (the average person, or perhaps some collection of fairly level-headed people) the patience to withstand the highs and lows and the sometimes bizarre behaviors of others.

I think for some people, understanding Steem and its benefits and best practices is not even a goal. They are either happy or happily malcontent in their approach and will behave emotionally first and assess the results later. Or not. Some people demonstrate what the world would be like if bots had emotions. I'm a hater and I'm stuck on annihilate! Look out!

It is good for everyone to recognize that no matter how much stake someone has, it does not make them an authority on how the system operates at a functional level. It also doesn't indicate their intelligence, looks, decision making ability or whether they have the ability to control their emotions.

The challenge in a decentralized system is knowing how to find a high-quality learning path and to find mentors that will steer you in the right direction. Your opening statement resonated with me. People should know better. But it's far easier not to. It's a relatively simple matter to show up here on the blockchain with all of your inherent traits, your social skills and intelligence, or lack thereof, and do what seems right to you at the time, which may or may not be fruitful in any way. (One of my New Years' resolutions is to really study Steem. I still can't explain it very well after two and a half years. Tisk tisk!)

But let's say you don't really understand it. Let's say you're new, or the math is hard to comprehend (looks in mirror), or you're psychologically stuck at HF10 (or evolutionally stuck at cro-magnon). It's still not hard to at least try to do the right thing. Use upvotes to reward good content. If you see abuses of Steem, go ahead and exercise your right to downvote and help to level the playing field, if you so choose. And be a team player. Look for great bloggers and curate their content. Just don't be a dick. Well said, @tarazkp.

I think for some people, understanding Steem and its benefits and best practices is not even a goal.

Yeah, and I understand when they just want to come here to create, but once they want to start being part of the process and governance, best to do some learning.

People should know better. But it's far easier not to.

I had a conversation with a client today about the democratic process and how flawed it is because firstly, people are idiots and then, they act out of convenience, which is to give up control and freedom.

I isn't hard to be a good actor in a community, it is just that many choose not to be.

Agreed on all counts!

This deserves more of a thoughtful reply than I can at this time from my phone, so will return to it later. :)

What you said...

It goes with the territory.

Didn't have a photo of peanuts?

I can go into the bathroom and take one if you want.

Haha, yeah, immortalise that on the blockchain!

"It also doesn't indicate their intelligence, looks, decision making ability or whether they have the ability to control their emotions."

k1xztb4amc.gif

Sorry, this was all I could think of when I read this! 😆
Poke the large stakeholder with a stick.

Pretty much the way it goes when the bear is a child :D

Your post definitely got me thinking. I'm going to go in a bit a tangent from the original feel of your post. Your post got me thinking of anarchy.


The beauty of a decentralized environment is that essentially everyone is able to take their own lessons into practice and behave as they see fit.

When I started with steemit, there was a high percentage of self-proclaimed anarchists. The majority of posts were about crypto going to the moon and how government and taxation was theft. :-)

A rough definition of an anarchist is anyone who "is able to take their own lessons into practice and behave as they see fit."

In my head ... I've always been comparing the social experiment that is the steem ecosystem, to what I believe peaceful anarchy would be like.

  • When folks don't like to frontend of steemit.com, they move to a different front end. (busy.org and many, many others)
  • There are those that will always game the system for their own gain
  • Folks who simply want to troll others posts, downvoting and negative comments that provide little value.
  • The vast majority of folks on the platform are awesome!

When it's time for a fork, there is chaos. That's basically when it becomes clear that this is a democratic platform and not an anarchist platform.

  • The witnesses are all voted in by the population (elected representatives)
  • The posts for and against the changes proposed in the upcoming fork fill the feed
  • Folks will claim that they will leave if the fork goes through... some do, most don't
  • once the fork goes through, everyone realizes that it only had a subtle difference on their lives compared to the way it was before.

So, essentially, steem is a decentralized democracy.

So, essentially, steem is a decentralized democracy.

In many ways it is, and I think it could be a working model for what could actually happen (with a few tweaks) to make the ridiculous model of democracy we have now much better. If you imagine that instead of voting a person (highly stupid), people filled a questionnaire of some kind that gave direction and applied rules. However, their answers will also be weighted by their expertise meaning that specialists in an area will carry more weighting than laypeople. This requires a lot of data to feed into it to cover education, work and a web of trust network layer, but one day it could mean a much more sensitive and accurate voting mechanism rather than emotion of popularity.