Roosevelt said, wrote, and did a lot of important and poignant things. I'm particularly fond of his speech about how we must stop being hyphenated Americans, and be just Americans. (He was railing against how the nation was balkanizing into "Italian-Americans" and "German-Americans" and "Irish-Americans.")
Sadly, he wasn't perfect. And modern-day internet revisionists who understand neither history, nor context, and expect perfection are rapidly erasing him, his words, and his deeds from history.
I would say "the credit belongs to the person actually in the arena, who is also able to step outside the arena and consider their failures from an outsider's point of view" but that is obviously not very catchy.
Hannah Arendt has a bunch of interesting things to say on the actor/spectator tension, though I am unable to currently find a better reference than https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/.
You are being reductionist. Comments don’t have to be negative, they can be positive - I.e just pointing out “new good stuff” and this allows one to discover content faster. The content here is the speed of distribution of new “worthy”.
It’s what negative reinforcement vs positive reinforcement is.
So negative reinforcement is taking something bad away to reinforce a behaviour you want to see more of. e.g. umbrella and rain, eating and hunger, etc.
Positive reinforcement is giving credibility to people who are doing something worthy.
Taking something good away is negative punishment. You are removing something they want, to reduce (punish) the behaviour (not reinforce it). Classic case is taking a kid's toys away when he won't behave.
Of course, these things are mixed. If receiving bad comments online is hurtful, then that is positive punishment. The removal of credibility is an added sting.
Positive reinforcement is correct in that example yes.
I've been involved in dog training where some people are really into this, while others twist the concepts to suit them, so getting it right is a bit of a personal peeve.
What you're doing instead is diverging the conversation towards a topic that is unrelated to the subject; while in the process satisfying your own ego.
And yes, I meant "negative punishment" vs "negative reinforcement".
> "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
It's also a useful metric for deciding who to follow on social media. Is the person showing off their work or are they just commenting on the work of others? If the work/comment ratio drops too low, I stop following them.