Why’s it only greys in the rate me section.

[kief]

Lmao

 

[Slayfer]

In the rating section it's always ltns or people bragging.

Almost everyone who posts there will not ascend from where they are now.

Likely due to them not being capable of seeing what they need to improve.

 

[kief]

In the rating section it's always ltns or people bragging.

Almost everyone who posts there will not ascend from where they are now.

Likely due to them not being capable of seeing what they need to improve.

The Stagnation of Online Rating Communities: A Critical Examination











Introduction








In many online communities, rating sections function as arenas of validation, critique, and performance. Whether centered on appearance, skill, or creativity, these spaces theoretically serve as mechanisms for growth—offering participants feedback that could guide improvement. Yet, in practice, they often become echo chambers dominated by two groups: long-time non-serious (LTNS) users who treat the section as social theater, and individuals who use the platform to boast about their perceived achievements. The paradox is that, although these forums could foster progress, almost no one ascends from where they currently stand. This essay argues that such stagnation stems from cognitive blind spots, cultural norms of self-presentation, and the structural limitations of rating-based feedback systems.








The Psychology of Self-Improvement and Blind Spots








Personal growth requires the ability to perceive one’s own deficiencies and act upon constructive criticism. However, research in psychology demonstrates that individuals are often poor judges of their weaknesses due to cognitive biases such as the Dunning–Kruger effect, where low performers overestimate their abilities and high performers underestimate theirs. In rating sections, this manifests as users misinterpreting feedback, dismissing critiques as irrelevant, or clinging to validation while ignoring the call to self-reflect. Those who cannot identify what they need to improve will inevitably plateau.








Bragging as a Substitute for Development








Bragging, common in these communities, functions as a self-defense mechanism. By highlighting one’s strengths—whether genuine or exaggerated—users attempt to protect their self-image from critique. Yet, constant self-promotion fosters complacency. Instead of using the section as a tool for progress, participants recast it into a stage for affirmation, where the goal is not transformation but preservation of identity. In such an environment, improvement becomes secondary to reputation maintenance.








The Role of LTNS Culture








Long-time non-serious users reinforce this stagnation. Their interactions are shaped less by authentic critique and more by in-jokes, reputational hierarchies, and a sense of community belonging. While this can generate cohesion, it also dilutes the section’s evaluative purpose. LTNS culture privileges entertainment and familiarity over honest appraisal, thereby discouraging serious engagement with self-betterment.








Structural Flaws of Rating-Based Feedback








Even beyond individual psychology and subcultural norms, the very structure of rating systems is flawed. Numeric scores or superficial comments (“7/10,” “good job”) rarely provide actionable guidance. Improvement demands nuanced, qualitative feedback, but the rating section incentivizes brevity, wit, and conformity to group standards. Thus, even motivated individuals lack the scaffolding needed to transcend their current level. A feedback system designed for performance signaling rather than personal development cannot realistically yield growth.








Consequences: Perpetual Stasis








The cumulative effect is stasis. Participants cycle through the same behaviors—posting, defending, bragging, bantering—without altering their trajectory. While newcomers may initially hope to grow through critique, most either assimilate into the LTNS culture or disengage. The section thereby becomes a self-perpetuating ecosystem in which few, if any, ascend beyond their present state.








Conclusion








Online rating sections embody an ironic contradiction: platforms intended for evaluation and growth often become stagnant arenas of self-promotion and social ritual. The inability to recognize personal deficiencies, the prevalence of defensive bragging, the cultural dynamics of LTNS users, and the limitations of rating-based feedback converge to create an environment where meaningful progression is rare. To truly foster improvement, communities must shift from validation toward constructive critique, from numeric ratings to actionable feedback, and from performance to reflection. Until then, the rating section will remain less a ladder of ascent than a mirror reflecting participants’ current selves—unchanged and unchallenged.