Sex and Reciprocity. And other Social Media DOHs
by Stan Faryna
Wealth, power and influence – for the obvious reasons – will always be interesting.
But I have occasionally wondered whether or not the meek, the poor in spirit, and the pure of heart can profit by the ways and means of the wealthy, powerful and influential. Are these ways and means the rising tides that can lift small boats?
This was, in fact, the hope, promise and merit of capitalism.
Reciprocity, itself, is a greater challenge than we may care to admit – especially when everyone, equally, wants something for nothing.
However, if reciprocity is to be providential and reciprocal, it must provide an equity in results – not action.
The economics of sex should be fairly obvious in regard to results and satisfaction. I hope you can forgive me for not illustrating the intimate details of our expectations, results and satisfaction. But I would like to imagine that you get my point.
Likewise, if you mention me on your Facebook fan page and bring me to 50,000 eyes, my mentioning you on your fan page to 100 eyes is not a reciprocity. Reciprocity requires me to commit myself to liking a 100 posts (or more), supporting your posts with encouraging comments for months and months AND sharing your posts across Facebook, G+, etc. across a year.
Who does that?! Who tries?
Sadly, it is the rare individual who pays his/her social debt. And rarer for the individual who pays it gladly. And this, I fear, is why more people do not succeed in their ambitions – social, game-wise, friendship, or everlasting love.
Alas- even the meek, the poor in spirit, and the pure of heart seem to lack a basic understanding of economics. And equitable reciprocity.
Of course, I could be mistaken. But I also could be a little bit right.
25 March 2013