question:  How does the author contradict their promises that sharing will produce a more equitable society?
context: A key fact is that a superabundance of community respect and social capital are being accumulated by those who share. Although eclipsed by the many pragmatisms of daily life, the theory of Sharism finds basis in neuroscience and its study of the working model of the human brain. Moreover, such a simple logic can be iterated and amplified, since all neurons work on a similar principle of connecting and sharing. A neural network exists to share activity and information, and I believe this model of the brain should inspire ideas and decisions about human networks. Thus, our brain supports sharing in its very system-nature. Whenever you have an intention to create, you will find it easier to generate more creative ideas if you keep the sharing process firmly in mind. If your internal cognitive system encourages sharing, you can engineer a feedback loop of happiness, which will help you generate even more ideas in return. 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. 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. Human history is always so: something important was happening, but the rest of the world hadn’t yet realized it. The small-scale granularity of the content can fill discrete gaps in experience and thus record a new human history.
output:  By equating sharing with equity, those who do not share will inevitably be denied access to certain benefits
options:  By allowing anyone from anywhere to publish anything, a lack of credibility and accuracy in content means that people living in poverty are more likely to be taken advantage of  By equating sharing with equity, those who do not share will inevitably be denied access to certain benefits  By connecting creativity to cultural capital, those who are more logical and scientific thinkers will be marginalized  By comparing sharing to human neural activity, the author implies that humans who have a preference not to share are 'less than' and will be treated differently