Gathering 'likes' was addictive, and because of the low effort required to 'like' things, it created the false impression of being connected to people. Suddenly, reacting to EVERYTHING became an expectation. Of course, this is what Facebook wanted, but it is overwhelming to react meaningfully to everything every one of the 338 friends an average Facebook user has.
There's also the receiving side of likes - the Variable Ratio Schedule which means the more you post, the more likely you are to receive a 'like' - but there's not a direct correlation. Skinner (the father of operant conditioning) identified this as the most effective reward mechanism to condition behaviour.
I believe (quite strongly) that the 'like' button is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the mental health damage being done by Facebook and Instagram.
Why would there be correlation? Do you mean in your own mind, or decided by others?
> test ideas
I don't understand. You post things you don't necessarily believe, to see how people react? This is not a healthy approach for you or the platform. You could instead use one account and simply say you're not sure about this or that idea, or on the fence about particular issues.
If I had a reputation then people would consciously or not evaluate the truth of my statements at least in part based on my reputation. I often fail, but I try to write the truth as I see it and let it stand without being tied up in my identity.
I would expect the same of readers of my posts... I highly doubt anyone is digging through my old posts. Who has the time? For what purpose?
The exception is maybe a big claim you make. Perhaps a controversial claim which is hard to verify, and people may then look at your past comments. But if you're not making any big bold claims, or leaking juicy gossip, or dropping any unbelievable truth bombs....
I think your account churn is motivated by something else. It's your business, it's all good, but your HN account reputation wouldn't be used against you. Every day is a new day, and people gravitate towards good faith discussion, don't they? Your spicy post from the other day is forgiven! (to be clear, I am not aware of any spicy posts you wrote). Good luck.
It's good in some ways because it drives behavior I would consider healthy in a community--thoughtfully reviewing a post before hitting 'reply,' respectful discourse, and thorough fact-checking.
But I also find that same pressure convincing me not to post, especially if I'm a novice in an area or need help. I understand this is egotistical in many ways, and managing it by "staying anonymous via a new stage name" is a really interesting idea.
Do you imbue reach handle with its own persona (presumably a fragment of yours, writ whole)?
Or is it basically just a cover for whatever you feel like writing in each moment?