How the Internet, Dopamine and your Brain are Working Together to Screw Your Potential.

[jtuck004]

(and what you can do about it)

Do the Math: How much of your time is spent online consuming things made by other people versus time spent making something of your own? Using Wikipedia’s “Wikipedians” as a general compass, only .01 — .02 % of their audience creates (contributes) to their community. Everyone else, statistically including yourself, is just a leech of the system. This behavior is of course replicated across a wide variety of mediums on the internet in a similar fashion. Have you created something of value after researching online and gotten the same feeling as if you were the original innovator? Do you ever wonder the long term effects of simply being a consumer versus being a creator? I’ll give you the short answer: your potential will be severely stunted until you make a change.

The Two Types of Creators
For the purpose of this exercise lets say there are two types of creators which will follow later with the two types of cognitive functions involved in each: Replication Creators (RC) and Skilled Creators (SC).
...
You Actually Are Your Khakis
Quick: Name 5 impressive things about yourself. Take a moment and write them down before reading the next paragraph.

Look over your list. Do they contain words like published, awarded, graduated, built, founded or created? Or do they contain mostly adjectives like nice, caring, loving, honest and smart? If you’re in the first sentence it’s likely you’re an SC. If the majority of your responses are in the second sentence you are likely an RC.
...

Here.
Too many rentiers, not enough creators...

[Fumesucker]

1. No different than television in that regard and maybe a bit better

You can't even talk back to the TV either, well you can but your voice won't go back through the TV.

[Ampersand Unicode]

2. What if your list contains both?

Also, is this only about computery things like Wikipedia? I don't know how to program a computer and so would probably fall into no category if so. What about scrapbooking or Legos? Plus, I fail to see how contributing trivia to an article about some obscure senator in ancient Rome (like how tall he was) warrants "creative recognition." I think Dramatica is more creative and innovative (I know, bad person -- and don't worry, I don't contribute there). Those guys are certifiable, and that's an understatement, but at least they're having fun. Wikipedia, when the "contributors" aren't getting into flame wars, can at times be long-winded and boring.



What counts as "creating," anyway? Does it have to be "original" from the ground up or can it be something pastiche like a mashup of different mediums or materials or an edited photo? Cat videos are "original," but I wouldn't exactly call those creative. I've seen some pretty clever YouTube parodies and fan videos, though, consisting of more than just posting random Family Guy clips.

Example: my brother, when he was younger, was fooling around with Photoshop. He managed to turn the famous picture of Mao Tse-Tung into something he called "Chinese Jesus" and sent it to all his AIM buddies. I wish I had the picture still (was on our old comp, which died) because it was really funny. Is that considered skilled (because he made something completely new out of something else) or replicating because he didn't take the picture himself? It was a Wiki picture at that.