 According to the author, why do people stop themselves from sharing as much as they could?
People generally like to share what they create, but in a culture that tells them to be protective of their ideas, people start to believe in the danger of sharing. But since the brain, and society, is a connected system, the accumulation of these micro-attitudes, from neuron to neuron and person to person, can result in observable behavior. It is easy to tell if a person, a group, a company, a nation is oriented toward Sharism or not. For those who are not, what they defend as “cultural goods” and “intellectual property” are just excuses for the status quo of keeping a community closed. Much of their “culture” will be protected, but the net result is the direct loss of many other precious ideas, and the subsequent loss of all the potential gains of sharing. Non-sharing culture misleads us with its absolute separation of Private and Public space. It makes creative action a binary choice between public and private, open and closed. This creates a gap in the spectrum of knowledge. Human history is always so: something important was happening, but the rest of the world hadn’t yet realized it. The shift toward easy-to-use online publishing triggered a soft revolution in just five years. The small-scale granularity of the content can fill discrete gaps in experience and thus record a new human history.
 They are distrustful and apprehensive of a negative social response
 They are distrustful and apprehensive of a negative social response  They are unsure of the best venue for sharing their content  They believe that people who share on a frequent basis are desperate for attention  They generally feel that the cost of their content is not as high as the value