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 
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.
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, 
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 ]
