The glass is half empty! No, wait, half full! no, er.. wait...

We have all been asked at one time or another whether we view the half glass of water as being "half full" or "half empty". The premise, of course, being that if you view the glass as "half full" you are an optimist in general. You tend to look at the 'brighter' side of things, always looking and hoping for positive outcomes.

The theory continues to explain that looking at the glass as "half empty' would label you as a pessimist. Someone who generally expects the more negative side of things and thus has such an outlook on life.

I'm the weird one. Okay, I am sure I am not alone. But, I know for a fact I am a pessimist. Internally. Externally, I try to be an optimist. At least with regard to dealing and communicating with people. So, the way I see it, if I consider and prepare for (if not actually expecting) the negative and it comes to pass, I simply get what I thought I would get. If the opposite happens and the outcome is positive, then I am pleasantly surprised.

I figure if I were an optimist all the time, the positive will simply provide what I have prepared for, but the negative will be a disappointment. At least, that's my reasoning in it.

But that also brings me to the real argument of it: reasoning.

Again, there are two sides to a coin with regard to how we think: emotionally or logically. It is very difficult for the two to mesh. I won't go into politics for the fastest way to start a conflict is to discuss such, I will use this example: do you back your chosen candidate based on your emotion or your logic? In other word, do you like them because their words make you deel good or you are simply more in favor of their policies?

Think about this for moment.

When you are in an argument, and we've all been there, do you 'raise your voice when you should reenforce your argument'? Do you base your points on your emotions? ...or do you simply try to rely on fact, rather than impression or feelings?

There has been s study that has shown the human condition thrives of anger or conflict. Researchers placed monitoring on lab rats to measure certain endorphins in the brain - and in the experiment, they places a 'stranger' rat nearby. The 'indigenous' rat went on the defensive... becoming angry... the endorphins were flying. Yet, when they removed the intruder, the endorphins slowed considerably. They trained the rat to press one of two buttons - one for food and the other to bring the intruder back. They were astonished the little bugger often tapped the intruder button, and every time the intruder was present, the endorphins went nuts.

So, it is actually proven that our minds thrive on conflict.

The question becomes how this is handled with regard to emotion and logic.

I'm an old fart.

Okay, not really that old, but old enough to fairly say I've been around the world and have good life experience. Enough to have developed into relying more on analytical fact rather than emotion whenever I find myself involved in any debate. I rely on logic.

So, this brings me back to the SL blog. There are those who, at least try to post meaningful, thoughtful feedback, even if it is critical of the Lindens and how they are managing SL. The topic itself has a lot to do with this as well.

For instance, the whole subject on Identity Verification became very emotional for many. personally, I don't see where emotion has anything to do with it. However, just the idea that LL will introduce it, even though it is 100% voluntary, there are those who are still shrill about the whole idea. And somehow, because of all this emotion, "Identity Verification" has turned into "Age Verification" (which to my recollection has never been officially announced and being changed as such by anyone at Linden Lab - yet even Robin Linden called it this in a blog post - how easily influenced she must be) - and thus the debate becomes even more emotionally heated.

Wow.

So, when I say that the 'whiner's' are getting tiring to read, I am referring to those who rely solely (and likely without even realizing it) on emotional response.

In truth, and let's face it, we aren't as much in 'hate' of Linden Lab as we are of bugs and instability of Second Life.

I know, I know - this makes me sound like I am jumping to the Linden defense. Well, yes I am... but please indulge me here for a moment... I am very critical of LL in how they handle a lot of things. And, understand that SL started out as a demonstration for hardware and never really was intended (from its inception) to be what it is today. It grew on its own.

The problem is SL is standing on crooked legs and has to learn to walk smoothly. Unfortunately, we all are feeling the pain and shakes of this process.

When I 'defend' LL, I defend the people. Not LL as a whole or entity. I have been in the IT business for more than I'd really like to say ( a couple decades - let's leave it at that) :)

I have dealt with systems vast and wide and every bit as complicated as the Grid is. It's not an easy task to manage and it is so large and complicated, there will be problems all over the place and it will be riddled with bugs. The problem comes down to human resources and what is important to each of us. You have your "favorite" gripes about SL and so do I.

Now, I know there are many who are far worse-off than I am with the stability of SL and I don''t dispute that. But do understand, when you have 100 people trying to tackle 100,000 problems, priorities have to be arranged. Unfortunately, those priorities created by LL may not jive with your own priorities.We have all been waiting and waiting for the hair/shoes/name-your-prim-in-the-back orifice problem to be fixed. But, on the other hand, there are people whining (yes, I said whining) about the limit of only 25 groups allowed per person.

If you have to make a choice - which of these two problems do you want fixed. Not which one first - but rather which one. Assuming the other will not be touched. Period. Well, that's your personal priority choice. The problem is there are many, many other, more serious issues to be dealt with.

So, when I defend LL, what I am defending is their effort to get all this stuff fixed. I have no doubt they are trying hard and some of those Lindens do put in a lot of overtime. We just don't always see it. I know. I've been there and done that. For real.

What we see are those who are more directly engaged with the residents. So it appears they aren't trying very hard to get all these problems fixed. But if you think about it - Linden Lab has a lot of employees. Each, presumably, would have the surname of "Linden" if they ever come in-world.

There are a LOT of Lindens we never, ever see. All working behind the scenes. So I say, cut the Lindens (individual employees) a little slack - and throw the book at Linden Lab the company. And the face of the company is Philip (Linden) Rosedale and Robin (Linden ) Harper.

I know the 'whiners' as I call them are simply lashing out in frustration. And in truth the ones I would call 'whiners' are the totally shrill ones with absolutely nothing to contribute but hot air.

Yes, I'll admit - I whine, too. I just prefer to whine about the whiners. So I am a hypocrite, just like everyone else is at some point or another. We all love to bash something. I simply choose to bash the other bashers. Does that make me right? Of course not. But I enjoy those endorphins just like everyone else.

As for my blog posts, such as in this thread, when I say "thank you Lindens", please understand I am speaking specifically to that post. In this case, 'thank you Lindens for posting a weekly tip, regardless how useful it may or may not be.'

So, for my whining about the whiners and the mediocre whiners who assume my whining about whiners is always about them, when my whining about whiners is really whining about the habitual whiners who whine about the same things every whine, whine in and whine out...

I apologize.

So, which is it for you -

...is the glass half empty? ...or half full?