Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

alcoholics, for reasons yet obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. Our so-called will power becomes practically nonexistent. We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink.</blockquote><blockquote id="b97c">~ The Big Book, page 24.</blockquote>I mumbled something about doing more therapy sessions to stay in touch with my baseline feelings, but my new sponsor was having none of it.‘This isn’t an emotional issue!’ he said, cutting in. ‘This is a memory issue that no amount of therapy you chose to throw money at will solve.’He even suggested that the mental blank spot could be similar to a form of amnesia or dementia that science hasn’t picked up on yet.‘But why hasn’t science picked up on it?’ I asked, holding the phone tightly.‘Probably because this blank spot only happens at certain times. Most of the time, it lays dormant.’ he replied before warning,‘And unfortunately, this dormancy feature gives us an illusion of power. We think we’ve got sobriety now because our memory and willpower function normally again. Until, the condition randomly comes back online, and we relapse, leaving us totally baffled as to why it happened.’My new sponsor sighed deeply.‘It’s heartbreaking,’ he said softly. ‘Especially if you’ve relapsed after being multiple years clean. But it is sadly needed to show you that you are genuinely powerless, regardless of how much you desire and want to be sober.’My head was spinning. Every sentence felt like the jolt of an electric cattle prod.Later that day, I looked back at my recent relapses. I found no real conscious memory of consequences before any of them.It appeared relapse was happening to me, not by me.<blockquote id="8aba">As soon as I regained my ability to think, I went carefully over that evening in Washington. Not only had I been off guard, I had made no fight whatever against the first drink. This time I had not thought of the consequences at all. I had commenced to drink as carelessly as though the cocktails were ginger ale. I now remembered what my alcoholic friends had told me, how they prophesied that if I had an alcoholic mind, the time and place would come — I would drink again. They had said that though I did raise a defense, it would one day give way before some trivial reason for having a drink. Well, just that did happen and more, for what I had learned of alcoholism did not occur to me at all. I knew from that moment that I had an alcoholic mind. I saw that will power and self-knowledge would not help in those strange mental blank spots. I had never been able to understand people who said that a problem had them hopelessly defeated. I knew then. It was a crushing blow.</blockquote><blockquote id="93f7">~ The Big Book, page 41.</blockquote><figure id="7922"><img src="https://cdn-images-1.readmedium.com/v2/resize:fit:800/0*n4r4HuNFWSnCD_WU"><figcaption>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@alicealinari?utm_source=medium&utm_medium=referral">Alice Alinari</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com?utm_source=medium&utm_medium=referral">Unsplash</a></figcaption></figure><h2 id="287c">A Belief That It Will All Be Alright.</h2>Sadly, the ‘blank spot’ wasn’t all that was happening.My new sponsor later explained that something else was happening in my mind, a kind of twisting of my thinking that I couldn’t see either.This is the other main feature of the relapse condition.The Big Book explains it as follows:<blockquote id="f067">But there was always the curious mental phenomenon that parallel with our sound reasoning, there inevitably ran some insanely trivial excuse for taking the first drink. Our sound reasoning failed to hold us in check. The insane idea won out.</blockquote><blockquote id="4ad8">~ The Big Book, page 37.</blockquote>Anytime the ‘good idea’ of relapsing suddenly popped into my head, part of me would start to minimise the lunacy of this thought.I would begin to rationalise this catastrophic idea with excuses and reasons why it would be, in fact, okay to relapse despite being in recovery.No matter how insignificant and non-sensical those reasons were, they quickly became plausible and seemingly rational.At the same time, the urge to want to relapse would start to surge.A fear of missing out would relentlessly come crashing in like waves rolling in and out of my consciousness.Thoughts and narratives of why it would be okay this time would dominate my thinking.Finally, a tidal wave of justification would smother me into deep unconsciousness.Convinced of my rationale, I would carry out my plan, only to revert back to type and do everything I said I wouldn’t do, and again, find myself powerless to stop once I started.This twisted thinking was nothing more than a lie, but I believed the lie and didn’t see the flaw in the logic in light of my track record with partying.To any average person, this kind of thinking and decision-making would be termed irrational, unsound, or even insa

Options

ne.The Big Book calls this thinking an ‘obsession to beat the game’.Whether it’s a vague idea that this time it would be different, that I would do it differently and party like a gentleman.Or the well-loved excuse that this will be my last relapse. After this final time, I’ll be done for good. I’ll get on with my life.But, it never was different and that last time never did happen.My new sponsor would remind me often,‘You aren’t changing your mind when you’ve decided to give in and party; your mind has been changed for you.’<h2 id="4c19">It Centers In Our Minds</h2>Of course, there is a body element for the addict.Naturally, as a consequence of the constant extreme usage of powerfully addictive substances and processes that are designed by their very nature to make you want more and more, addicts have developed a sky-high tolerance.But there’s this annihilation approach to our acting out and using once we start, which the Big Book describes as the ‘phenomenon of craving’.In the Doctor’s opinion in the Big Book, Dr. Silkworth calls the phenomenon of craving an ‘allergy’, but my new sponsor wasn’t too keen on that idea.‘If it’s an allergy, then why doesn’t the phenomenon of craving happen every time?’Regardless of whether it is an allergy, the body part becomes irrelevant, as most people with a severe peanut allergy don’t tend to keep repeating the total lost cause of trying to have another peanut to see if they will react differently.They don’t touch or go anywhere near peanuts because they remember how terrible it was last time.Once or twice is enough.Not so with the real addict because of the first two features of the disease; they will not only be back gorging on peanuts, but they will eventually take up residence in a peanut factory.<blockquote id="e3f6">There is a complete failure of the kind of defence that keeps one from putting his hand on a hot stove. The alcoholic may say to himself in the most casual way, “It won’t burn me this time, so here’s how!” Or perhaps he doesn’t think at all.</blockquote><blockquote id="d5e6">~ The Big Book, page 24.</blockquote>That’s why the Big Book says the real problem ‘centers in our mind’, not our bodies.‘What will happen now,’ my new sponsor forewarned, ‘as the relapses get worse, the time between them will get shorter and shorter.’This condition is progressive.Therefore, the blanking and twisting will naturally grow in scope and reach until you can no longer differentiate the true from the false.<h2 id="869b">Turning To Something Else</h2>If you believe in the disease concept of addiction, that this is a disease, a fatal illness precisely like any other life-threatening condition, then you have it for life.There is nothing you can do to change that.If you constantly can’t remember why or how you relapsed despite your honest desire not to.Or if you continually relapse, believing some trivial reason or silly excuse to relapse while dismissing the genuine consequences, then you are a real addict.You have this relapse condition.You crossed a threshold where, at certain times, your inability to use reasoning and rational thinking won’t even register for you.The tragic truth is that once that threshold has been crossed, you have no choice but to relapse.A compromised part of your brain will always fire the thought of using or acting out. That will never change. It’s wired like that for life.There is no cure.Even this information won’t save you, as at certain times, you won’t be able to recall any of it when it matters.So, let go of trying to change that.Let go of any old ideas around fighting it and instead get out of the way and trust in something else.After all, that’s all you’ve got.There’s nothing you or anyone else can do to stop this relapse condition.But there’s everything you can do about everything else.There’s everything you can do about building a spiritual dimension to your life, by giving back, helping others, living in genuine faith and trusting in something greater than you.There’s everything you can do to improve your awareness and intuition, raise your consciousness and develop another part of your brain.And let this part of your brain grow bigger and stronger than that addictive part so that it can embrace and look after that compromised part.Just like a bigger and wiser older sibling can care for and comfort a much younger upset sibling by giving that stressed child a big hug.There’s everything you can do about deciding to take on a new attitude, direction, and way of life that will keep this condition dormant one day at a time.If this article speaks to you, please follow, share and subscribe to me for more.Click <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDarrenJames">here</a> to follow me on <a href="https://twitter.com/TheDarrenJames">X</a>.</article></body>

How Medium Should Change Its Partner Pay Structure to Pay Writers More

Wouldn’t you want to earn fair pay based on an unbiased pay scale?

Licensed via Freepik and edited by author

I joined Medium two months ago. During this time, I have read countless articles about making money on this platform. Some writers joke about getting peanuts for quality articles, while making most of their earnings from stories about “how to get rich writing on Medium.”

Jokes aside, I noticed an unpleasant trend: writers are reporting reduced income and increased level of burnout. Tom Kuegler wrote an article indicating his income decreased by 50% in March, and Shaunta Grimes corroborated the income change trend in April. I’m not whining about not making as much money as I would like to — again, I’m still new, and earning income wasn’t even my intention when I joined. But as I’m observing what’s going on here, I see a lot of unfair trends.

Table of Contents:
1. How does the partnership program work?
2. The problem.
3. How can Medium change that?
4. Internal views & external views.
5. Don't ban me, please.

How Does the Partnership Program Work?

You get paid, depending on the reading time. It doesn’t matter how many views or claps your article gets — it’s all about how much time people spent reading your work. An article might be measured at 10 minutes of reading time, but if the reader gets bored in the beginning — you’re not going to get those 10 minutes. Side note: I always scroll to the very bottom, even if I snooze after one minute so that the writer gets their money… Just saying!

So, here’s how it works, as per my understanding. Bob signs up as a new Medium number — congratulations, Bob! He pays $5 monthly and enjoys reading our posts. We, writers, get paid depending on how much time Bob spent on Medium — his $5 membership fee gets divided by the overall reading time and then gets distributed to us in the form of payment.

Example. Let’s say, Bob didn’t read too many articles last month, and his rearing time was only 2 hours or 120 minutes. If we divide $5 by 120 minutes, it will amount to a payment of $0.0416 per minute. So, if I, Joanna, wrote a 10-minute article which Bob reads, I would be paid $0.0416 x 10 minutes = $0.416. Therefore, I get 42 cents from Bob.

Let’s look at Kevin. Kevin wastes way too much time on the Internet, and he ended up spending 10 hours on Medium last month (or 600 minutes). If Kevin reads my article, I will only get a $5 fee / 600 minute of reading time * 10 minutes = $0.083. I will collect 8 cents from Kevin, which is 5 times less compared to Bob.

But then, there’s Stuart (yes, I chose Minions’ names for this exercise — sue me). Stuart is lazy and doesn’t like to read, but someone convinced him to join Medium. Stuart only read 2 articles before he closed the page and forgot all about the platform. Those 2 articles were 10 minutes each, and one of them was mine! It means I’m getting half of his membership fee, which is $2.50. That is 6 times more compared to Bob and a whole 30 times more than Kevin!

The Problem

What is the problem with this system? The problem is, the writer is directly dependent on the consumer’s level of activity/content consumption rate. The quality of or articles don’t necessarily correspond with our earnings, which doesn’t make sense, nor is it fair.

If you look at other businesses, the cornerstone strategy is the level of consumption. The less you consume, the least you will pay, and the more you consume, have the more you’ll end up paying. Most businesses out there have a progressive scale of payments, depending on the consumption level. Let me translate this to English:

1) Upon subscribing to a monthly food box, you select the number of meals per month.

2) If you choose one meal a month, you will pay the cheapest rate — let’s say, it’s $10.

3) if you select two meals a month, your cost is $20.

4) if you choose three meals — that’s $30.

Obviously, the companies are using “buy more, pay less” tactics, which means you will end up paying less and less the more meals you order. It makes sense for a company to ask for more money if the consumer wants to use more services or obtain more goods. A food subscription box company won’t be charging the same amount of money for a different number of meals — this way, they will run out of business, because their expenses would exceed their income. However, this is precisely what Medium is doing.

The platform isn’t charging more if the member reads more articles. In case the reader reads less, they don’t end up paying less. Virtual content cannot be physically measured, like the food inside the subscription box, which is why it might seem that the product is the same. But it’s not. Because we, writers, produce an extra product — AKA content — without being paid more. We are dependent on the members’ behavior and habits while we’re not supposed to be.

Instead of making a reasonable amount of earnings, we are gambling. Are we going to be lucky and get a bunch of Stuarts who don’t read? Are we going to be unlucky and only get Bobs or Kevins this month? What if one of us writes 15 articles, but only gets Bobs; well, the other one produces 3, but gets Stuarts for visitors? Then, the author who spent 5 times more effort and energy on their work will end up making the same amount of money as someone who didn’t do as much. Or even less money!

How Can Medium Change That?

I didn’t start this post to complain about not making enough “dough.” But this pay structure doesn’t make too much sense to me how much it is a business person. It dictates unfair compensation and pure luck, instead of a decent wage and equal opportunities.

YouTube pays its partners depending on the amount of money the advertisers pay them. The more ads a creator has in their videos, and the more people watch them; the more Youtubers get paid. Everyone gets an equal chance to earn money. How about Medium does the same thing for its writers?

Just a few days ago, I signed up for a service that was offering different tiers — or levels — to it. The more service the client uses, the more they pay. Medium can potentially do the same: increase the membership fee depending on the number of articles one reads; and vice versa.

Here’s a rough example of a membership fee depending on the number of articles read per month:

Bronze package: 20 articles = $2.50 per month.
Silver package: 50 articles = $5 per month.
Golden package: 100 articles = $8.50 per month.
Platinum package: more than 100 articles = $12 per month.

Important stipulation: regardless of the subscription package, the writers get paid a flat fee per each hour of reading time. For example, 60 cents per hour, or 1 cent per minute.

Alternatively, based on the reading time (the stipulation is required here as well):

Bronze package: 60 minutes = $2.50 per month.
Silver package: 150 minutes = $5 per month.
Golden package: 300 minutes = $8.50 per month.
Platinum package: 300+ minutes = $12 per month.

(a flat fee paid to the writer is still required)

Or more. Or less. That’s something the company would have to figure out. If the member wishes to switch from one package to another in the middle of the month, they can do that. This model would also allow us to potentially create a few tiers of articles: the curated and non-curated. Medium has curators for a reason — they read ALL the content and pick the best stories, which results in getting more views and attention. Maybe, the platform can encourage writers even more to write quality pieces that get curated, and create a premium add-on for curated articles? Like Airbnb and Airbnb Plus? Anyway, that’s just a thought. One may come up with a ton of ideas.

The point is: we need a change. I’ve read way too many articles with writers expressing dissatisfaction with the way they are paid. I saw a writer who left the platform because of that. There are a lot of indecent companies out there who take advantage of not only creators but regular employees. I’m sure that a Twitter-owned company would want to treat their workers — or contractors — reasonably.

Speaking about writers. If Medium implements such a payment scale, an exemption would be helpful for those who write for Medium, so we don’t have to pay extra for reading more articles, as we need to be aware of what others are writing to map out our content. And guess what? Implementing a minimum article requirement might be beneficial for Medium. For example, “if you write 3 articles per month, you don’t have to pay extra on top of the $5 membership fee”. This can motivate more members TO WRITE, which would result in more content for Medium, and that will transform into higher reading time and earnings for the platform.

Internal Views & External Views

We all know Medium probably makes money from external views as well. Writers are speculating about how they do it, but the point is: it would be nice to receive some sort of compensation for it as well. It can be a flat payment of 2, or 5, or 10 cents for all I care. But getting a ton of external views, which generate a lot of traffic for the website, and not receiving any pay for it, doesn’t seem fair either.

But the membership fee pay allocation is the prime issue right now. Imagine Uber paying its drivers depending on how many rides a rider takes per month. I bet drivers would quit after a day after accepting an hour ride and getting $3 for it because the client uses the car share a lot.

Don’t ban me, please

I’m a newbie, but let me know if I got this right or not. Also, if Medium’s decision-makers actually read this, I hope I don’t get banned. 😅 If I do — you know why!

In all seriousness, this platform is allowing me to disconnect from the scary pandemic-filled world right now. It’s positively affecting my mental health, not to mention it suddenly became a source of income. It would be a shame if new writers chose to leave Medium due to an imperfect pay structure. Especially since some writers partially depend on the income from the partnership program. Particularly during the financial crisis, when so many people lost their jobs!

Medium is an excellent platform and a great way to start and progress as a writer. I’m incredibly grateful I found it, and I’m enjoying it every day. It would be nice you see positive changes, though.