"You Didn't Earn That", Part II
My "You Didn't Earn That" post sparked lots of discussion, with 86 comments thus far.
My takeaway from that discussion is that the human ego is very much invested in the idea that people get, or at least should get, "what they deserve". The problem with this attitude is that it goes against everything that science tells us is true. Science, and simple logic, show us that life is far more random than our egos like to suppose, and nobody "deserves" their lot in life, for better or for worse.
But why are our egos so stubborn on this point? Why do they insist that we each have "free will" and therefore that we each should "own" our outcomes?
I think the answer is simple. If we abandon the idea of free will and instead accept the increasingly obvious alternative, then how do we justify "punishing" people when they screw up, and how do we justify "rewarding" the exceptional among us so lavishly?
If you've never read Nassim Taleb's books The Black Swan and Antifragile, I strongly recommend them. They go to great lengths to demonstrate that life's outcomes are far more random than we suppose. They also demonstrate how we regularly rationalize away this randomness via after-the-fact explanations to make it seem to ourselves like people "earned" their reward for innovation.
One possible takeaway from this conclusion that nobody "deserves" their lot is that there's no justifiable basis, morally or rationally, for large variations in those rewards.
But Taleb contends otherwise, using market-based economies and centrally planned economies as means of illustrating his point.
Let's suppose that some human-benefiting innovation--like the glue used by Post-It Notes, to choose a simple example--was discovered as a matter of "dumb luck" rather than true innovation (and, actually, it was, and so were most of history's great innovations). In which economy would the Post-It Note most likely be "discovered"--a market-based economy where risk taking and experimentation is showered with outsized rewards when successful, or a centrally-planned one where a few decision makers at the top direct the efforts of everyone below in a highly focused and coordinated way and wealth is more evenly distributed?
Obviously, the former. The market economy is decentralized, or "open source". Consequently, more people take risk and "roll the dice". More minds are constantly thinking "outside of the centrally planned box". More people rolling more dice increases the odds of one of them hitting jackpot. And we only need one of them to occasionally hit jackpot to provide extreme benefits to society. Take away the outsized reward for risk taking and experimenting, as centrally planned economies do, and innovation slows to a crawl.
The word entrepreneur means simply "risk taker". And it's that risk taking that decentralized, market-based systems reward. It's not the discovery or the "creation" of the innovation itself, and it's not the "brilliance' or the "ambition" of the discoverer, for those are ultimately fortuitous.
The Steem system actually works the same way. Rewards for the most popular posts are "outsized". Because they are outsized, they encourage people to strive for them--they encourage posting and creativity, for example. They encourage more people to "buy" more lottery tickets by writing and posting more often than they otherwise would, and to target their writing to interest the community.
But the Steem "winners" didn't "earn" their reward anymore than the discover of the Post-It note did. Mostly their winning was a function of "luck"--the right idea sprang into their mind unconjured, the right whale happened to stumble upon their post and upvote it at a convenient moment, causing others to see it and upvote it also. The right person made an interesting comment that sparked lots of attention and debate.
And yet, if because of that we developed a more "equal" distribution of Steem rewards, we'd actually see posting and innovation and effort decline precipitously.
To conclude, outsized rewards are completely justified because they benefit society as a whole and not because they represent the "earnings" of the discoverer/inventor/contributor. Bill Gates didn't "earn" his fortune, but society would be insane to deprive him of it (communism already tried that approach).
How funny would it be if you got like 45,000$ for this analyze hahahha (I wouldn't mind some of that, even if i didnt earn it ;))
Looks like every upvote by @dantheman is throwing away ~200 USD. I wonder whether this ~200 USD is also getting deducted from @dantheman wallet? If not, then where from this ~200 USD is coming to the system?
Please read the White Paper and learn for yourself. It can be found at steem.io
are you gonna back me up or what?
give me a direct response
It's coming from future people who will buy steem and power up.
I think people need to initially step away from effort = reward. Then step away from value = reward. To end up with value + luck + reverberating message outside of the content = reward.
That's how the game is played.
what does this mean?
something that is in the 'collective psyche' will catch more peoples attention as a percentage of readers and (likely) catch more upvotes.
at least thats my interpretation :)
As @blakemiles84 said, something on the 'collective tip of the tounge' . Also something that inspires more people to join and build up the community at a more rapid pace.
Ok, I understand, thank you.
There definitely is an element of luck involved, but you can help it along by having consistently good content, as you seem to. Hard work MAY also be rewarded...
On Reddit, I use to love the thrill of waking up and checking my phone and seeing a comment or submission hit the karma jackpot. And I love it when a comment I make on Steemit hits it big even more. This reward system has the potential to bring in millions of people who don't have a clue what Bitcoin or crypto is.
"Obviously, the former. The market economy is decentralized, or "open source". Consequently, more people take risk and "roll the dice". More minds are constantly thinking "outside of the centrally planned box". More people rolling more dice increases the odds of one of them hitting jackpot. And we only need one of them to occasionally hit jackpot to provide extreme benefits to society."
Directly related: See my post about open OODAs :
https://steemd.com/steemit/@earnest/open-oodas/open-oodas
This is circular logic. The post must have been good, because it earned a lot of money. And it deserved to earn a lot of money, because it was good. A simple look at the average quality of the top earning posts discredits such an arugment. There have been some good quality posts. But mostly its been spam, catfish, empty CL, and plagarism.
Outsized rewards to a small, select exclusive group of people, who are guaranteed them regardless of post quiality do not inspire higher quality. They inspire lower quality because they encouraged the authors guaranteed the rewards to post regardless of if they have any meaningful content. This phenomenon is called a liquidity trap. The same thing happened with american manufacturers in the 1970s.
Also, i don't think most people object to the outsized rewards. They object to the fact that those rewards are decided by a very few people with a disporportioniate level of influence and franly, what seems like terrible taste and judgement. ANd who gained that influence through a closed premine.
Now you can say its all a matter of taste, but the falling price of steem shows that most people don't share yours and the other whales. The only reason that price is above $1 right now is chinese investment. Judging by their conversation in their tag, theyre pretty disgusted by it too.
This post is a great example. You like the reward system, so your post will get pinned to the front page by those who benefit from it. Those who disagree with you will keep quiet, since youve already threatened reprisals against anyone who posts an alternative view.. Which is all well and clever, but its also exceptionally hamfisted. Its obvious to pretty much everyone.
The ironic thing is that, youre hurting yourself more than anyone else. I gotta wonder how far the currency has to fall before the "elite" on this site start to scratch their head and wonder if they might be doing something wrong.
Yeah right. and it doesnt strike you as a bit at odds with you theory that it always happens to the same people.
I see you chose to focus only on the Steemit-related portion of my comments. They actually flowed as an afterthought. My post was actually about much bigger societal issues, not Steemit.
But I also see that you have a rather large chip on your shoulder about Steemit. So let me see if I can help you with that.
First, who said anything about a post being "good"? The whole point of my post was that rewards are not based on merit or the quality of the content but rather largely on luck. So there was no "circular logic". Did you even read my post? Try reading it again.
The purpose of Steemit is not to "inspire higher quality". That will be a likely beneficial side effect in some cases, but that's not its reason to be. Stop thinking of it a that way and you'll spare yourself a lot of angst.
"Influence" on Steemit is for sale, just like in the "real world". Anyone with money can have it. As for me, most of my "influence" was acquired with cash, and a fair amount of it. I had no "premine" (and actually, nobody else did either). I believe in the platform, I wanted to have a say in how it develops, so I bought Steem Power. You or anyone can do the same, and by doing so you can also have an outsized voice in the system.
Instead, many came here expecting something for nothing. Or at least for little. They thought they could show up at the party like a "wild and crazy guy", start throwing up a few posts, and reap tons of reward. Well, it doesn't work that way. Steemit is a SOCIAL network. People who know and like each other support each other. Just like in the "real world" it takes a while to make new friends and admirers, but those who make the consistent effort get rewarded. Those who don't, and who wish to rely only on "merit" or "quality" to make their way in the world...well...they have a little tougher time of it. This is no different from the "real world".
So, like in the real world, friendship and familiarity are at least as important as "quality". Remember that and, once again, you'll save yourself a ton of angst.
If the influential people here do in fact have "terrible taste and judgement", as you so smugly suggest, then...you know what? THEY WILL BE THE ONES TO PAY THE HIGHEST PRICE FOR IT. And, that's the beauty of Steemit. The people with "chips in the game" make decisions in proportion to their amount at risk, unlike in the "real world" where it's "heads they win, and tails you lose."
I've never threatened anyone with reprisal for simply disagreeing with me or the rewards system or for offering up a helpful, constructive suggestion. I have threatened people with downvotes who are obviously just trolling--meaning that they are intentionally spreading factually incorrect information (and not just opinions) and/or they are engaging in ad hominem rather than constructive and issue specific related debate.
The currency is doing just fine. It's gone from 20 cents to $2 in a month. The whole thing is still in beta (closer to alpha in some ways). But you're right--if I'm wrong, I will pay a steep price. As it should be.
But...I'm not wrong. Just wait and see.
The "same people" who get consistently upvoted do indeed benefit from "luck". The most extreme type of it. They were fortunate enough to find Steemit early. They invested tons of time into building a strong reputation here. They made friends. They contributed to the various debates. They hung out on Slack.
They took risk and believed in the system at its earliest stages. And as LUCK would have it, the system has taken off. And the contacts and network they built over the last 60 days is paying off for them. There's a ton of luck in that.
100% a diplomat,
... and then you don't look into trending page. You find valueble posts in different categories. And good writers or just decent common sens or sharp mind in the comments.
And then you enjoy the system disregard the money race, the whales, the obvious tricks.
But you already knew that.
This is one of my favorite comments on any Steemit article. The Liquidity Trap is something that I think @dantheman and others involved with the Steemit Project should research. The flip side to whales posting "just to post" is "curating just to curate". I do this all the time. I see a model with nice breasts in the first 30 minutes on active or trending with $12 and 25 votes, and it gets my upvote (and I'm not even straight). I think there are a class or category of post types that have made it to "must-curate" status. (That might be a great tag!)
"Circular logic" is a great way of describing this.
A lot of users are realizing this and are discouraged from sharing their content. It could be argued that we shouldn't focus on the reward, rather, focus on the effort... but simultaneously, isn't one of Steemit's main objectives to reward people for their efforts?
Please read my reply to his comment. There is no "circular logic".
Even if your reply tracked logically, which is does not, its still circular logic. The justification for the payment is the payment itself.
I give you credit for not trying to pretend its based on the quality of your posts, but all youre doing is making the same arugment without the skill part.
Of COURSE the justification for the payment is the payment. That's how "price" is determined in free markets. In a free market, where nobody is compelled to buy or sell, the economic value of something is determined by what people are willing to voluntarily pay for it, or in this case what they are willing to up vote.
You, like many central planners, hypothesize that "value" and "price" are two different things--that something can have a very high price in the market but be of little to no "value", or vice versa.
Respectfully (and I'm not trying to engage in ad hominem here), what you are labeling as "value" or "quality" is just a matter of your subjective preference rather than objective price. And, you're cocksure enough to presume that you're estimation of value or quality is superior to mine or the market's. Such is the arrogance of all central planners.
But, what I don't get about you is that, even if you are right, you're so obviously wrong. By that I mean, even if its true that Steemit whales are currently rewarding crappy content that nobody is interested in and therefore that the platform will fail to attract users in the short term, this does not mean that it will fail in the medium term. (And by the way, there's no shortage of new users in the short term).
For it to fail, several things must be true. First, whales must be both stupid and unwilling to learn from their stupidity (that is, unwilling to change their voting strategy). I see evidence for neither. In fact, whales have take steps to remediate problems like bots, trolls and spam, and the recent reputation system implementation has gone a long way in that regard. Additionally, there's a concerted effort under way among whales to alter their voting strategy to avoid circle jerking and reward a large diversity of content. We are already starting to see the results.
Second, for it to fail, whales must insist on keeping control (and avoid dumping) despite that the platform is failing. In actuality, were the platform failing whales would dump and the coins would move into the hands of, presumably, people with better taste. Different content would be upvoted and new users wold therefore be attracted. Ultimately, the coins will end up in the hands of people who best understand what the public wants.
The only thing that would prevent this would be something superior coming along very soon and establishing a network effect advantage over Steemit. But, even if something like that comes along, it's most likely to be a fork of Steem (meaning that Steem holders would have coins on all such platforms).
Steem and Steemit are both essentially open source. Consequently, they will evolve quickly to meet the public's demand, whatever that may be. Given that, the odds of Steemit failing for the reasons you suggest (stupid whales upvoting crappy content in one giant circle jerk) are extremely unlikely.
Thank you for reiterating, that makes much more sense to me. It's much better to be optimistic. I was just throwing in my two cents (literally, haha).
Since you ragged me a bit for only addressing the "steem related" part of your post, i figured id post some thoughts on the non steem related parts. Youre not going to agree with me about this part either.
I know a lot of people who share your worldview... that it's all just luck. I was actually a professional card player for many years, and its a pretty common notion in those circles.
Its worthwhile to note that this statement "Science, and simple logic, show us that life is far more random than our egos like to suppose, and nobody "deserves" their lot in life, for better or for worse." is unsupported by evidence in your post. If there is such science or logic that supports your weltanschauung , you fail to cite it. You cite two fiction novels.
I could probably make a pretty good guess about your backstory, but i suspect you'd take umbrage, so ill refrain. I will say that people who believe this typically have 2 things in common. They usually don't have a vocation that adds substantial value to society (which is why the idea is so common among poker players) and they are usually broke most of the time.
I have no idea why you think bill gates didn't deserve to make the money he made. He was an innovator and he certainly worked hard for it. This sort of example, as well as your fictional postit example (more on that in a moment) are a typical argument used by those who espouse the ideas you do. In essence you attempt to bring everyone's accomplishments "down" to your level by attributing their success to luck rather than hard work and diligence.
The fact is that for most people luck plays a very small role in their professional success. If i told my clients "hey i fucked off all week. and by the way im not too bright. but don't worry everything will work out its all luck anyway", they would be horrified. I don't want the guy thats luckiest to be building my house or the bridge im driving over, i want the guy who is best at building things.
Your post-it story is a great example of how people who think like that tend to gloss over the work part and intellect part. You either don't know the real story, or youre tweaking it to fit your point.
At the end of the day, most people who espouse the "luck" thesis are people who have no skill or value to add to society, so they come up with the goofy notion that capitalism is some kind of get rich quick scheme because merit and hard work doesn't matter. Sometimes the scheme will work and theyll get rich, but they almost always lose it all and more when they move on to the next scheme and the one after that.
What you present is a pleasant fantasy for people who want to make a lot of money with a very little effort, but thats all it is -- a fantasy.
BTW, i didnt want to include it in comments because its a wall of text form me in the thread already, but heres the real story about the "luck" involved with the creation of post it note glue.
https://steemit.com/capitalism/@sigmajin/he-did-earn-that-the-story-of-the-minnesota-mining-and-manufacturing-company-and-spencer-silver
I just posted a lengthy explanation of my worldview and how I arrive at it. Read it when you can and you'll better understand me. My worldview flows naturally from a single foundational insight. You'll probably disagree with that insight, but we can debate that another day (and I'll be happy to offer evidence in support of it then).
In an event, you have me all wrong. Like you, I am a lawyer by education. I'm also a CPA by education. I have worked in financial services for decades where I have founded multiple highly successful businesses. I currently employ about 35 people, and I'm quite confident that my annual earned income exceeds your's. Google me and you'll find out other things that I do/am.
My net worth very likely exceeds your own (and yes, I read about you cashing out for $5 million--congrats on that!). Most of my net worth is in my businesses, but I'm also a successful speculator. I was a very early bitcoin adopter, buying most of my coins at an average cost basis of about $6. But, unlike you, my risk tolerance is quite high. So, I've held most of mine (or at least my family has). Let's just say I've done quite will with that, but it still represents less than 10% of my family's net worth.
I also acquired Ethereum in the crowdsale. I've done quite will with that too, despite recent events. But it too is a small portion of my family's net worth.
In short, my track record in identifying and acquiring crypto assets is quite good, and I'm more enthused about Steem than any of the others (and I'm still REALLY enthused about them!).
So, your suppositions about me are wrong. But, given that you tried to psychoanalyze me, let's see if I can do any better in returning the favor:
You've done well in life, but you could have done far better. You've had opportunities to make massive wealth, but each time you bail too early, and that bothers you. You don't have confidence in your ability to skillfully identify opportunities (because, in your heart, you too think, or at least fear, that life is much more random than you like to admit), and as those opportunities becomes bigger and bigger, your confidence in their continued growth declines proportionately. Consequently, you invariably sell out early. Yes, you make good money, but you miss the truly great money. You didn't have the "killer instinct" in poker--often passing on statistically perfect opportunities to go "all in". You bailed on bitcoin too early. You bailed on numerous other things too early. And now you've panicked and bailed on Steem, cashing in most of your coins.
Given your history of being cashing in too early, you don't want to think you've done that again. You want to be right this time. Really badly. You want to think that you sold the vast majority of your Steem at the perfect time, just before Steem failed. So, at an unconscious level, you are ignoring the obvious (for instance Steem's inherent anti fragility) and you're subconsciously rooting for Steem's failure. You are looking for reasons why it will fail instead of why it will succeed. You suffer from confirmation bias.
But, just in case you're wrong again, you kept a few thousand dollars in Steem, and you even recently Powered Up with it. So you've hedged your bet. Why? Because in your gut you know that life is random, and you never know.
Bill Gates essentially made his billions by bundling FAT with floppy disks. Genius.
He was also a very good marketer. People fail to realize that Windoze is not how he made Microsoft into the empire that it is now.
Compare what was done with Winblows versus the *nix operating systems and how you market a product (or don't market it, in the case of most *nix operating systems) changes the public's perception as to what is your standard PC.
Not saying that the guy doesn't justly deserve his riches or anything.
He knew the right people (networking) and marketed his brand.
Kudos to Bill.
Nassem Taleb is pretentious, his writing style is almost unreadable.
I upvoted because
a) tits
b) trending potential
come on dude.....
He's also brilliant. And right.
here is my new post, since I cannot post content I figured I can post songs:
https://steemit.com/stemmit/@earnest/the-river-of-steemit-dreams
Yeah. Do you think Steemit is a black swan?
I think blockchains are definitely a black swan. It's hard to know which blockchains will succeed though. Steem certainly has potential in my view.
"I think the answer is simple. If we abandon the idea of free will and instead accept the increasingly obvious alternative, then how do we justify "punishing" people when they screw up, and how do we justify "rewarding" the exceptional among us so lavishly? "
Bingo.
I don't agree at all. Most desire to punish comes from an unfairness that happened before to us, more than from the behavior of person being punished.
Punishing is an excuse, I believe
what do you find at the essence then?
envy?
I think the essence is power, money and status.
hypocrites?