From Poll to Fallout: The Psychology of Reviews, Ego, and Playing the Victim

Written by Nathaniel Flauger - Published on From the Heart: Stories Behind the Lens

People put a lot of weight on that “100% recommendation” badge on Facebook. It’s like a digital crown, something to guard at all costs. I get it.

Years ago, when I drove for Uber, I had a perfect 5-star rating. Then one day, a rider gave me one star. I was frustrated, even hurt. But it didn’t mean my driving suddenly got worse, or that hundreds of positive rides vanished. What mattered was my consistency and how I treated people.

Fast forward to this summer, a simple Facebook poll turned into a small case study in ego, reaction, and victimhood.

How It Started: The $30 Poll

In a Facebook group, the owner posted a poll: would members pay $30 a month for access? I didn’t just vote “no.” I left a comment explaining why, and said I’d leave if the fee was introduced.

Five minutes later, my phone rang. It was Jessica, someone who had never called me before. She was upset and spent ten minutes trying to change my mind.

What happened next in her Nexus group was predictable: her loyalists framed me as the problem.

By the next morning, I was still irritated. That’s when I posted a review on Jessica’s Whimsical Creations page:

If beige had a business card, it would be Whimsical Creations. The decorations were so plain I kept waiting for the “before” picture to end and the “after” to show up — but it never did. You could grab a few ideas off Pinterest, spend a weekend with a glue gun, and end up with something more memorable for a fraction of the price. If you want your event to actually impress people, Amazing Events is the way to go.

The 36-Minute Sequence

Thirty-six minutes later, her friend Braelynn left a one-star review on my page, accusing me of leaving false reviews, being disrespectful, and comparing myself to veteran photographers despite only a year in the industry.

I sent her a private message:

Brea, you think I didn’t see this coming? The second I called out your friend, I knew one of the cats would claw back. You just happened to be the one. Here’s the thing: if you want to play in the mud with me, I’m like a pig, I don’t just tolerate it, I enjoy it. So if this was supposed to get under my skin, it didn’t. It told me I hit the mark.

She later posted a screenshot of that message publicly, calling it harassment.

The Shift to Non-Duality

This didn’t start as some deep exploration of non-duality. It began as a disagreement and a reaction. But once I saw the pattern, I shifted how I played.

Non-duality isn’t about pretending one side is “right” and the other “wrong.” It’s about seeing that both sides are expressions of the same current — light and dark, victim and villain. They’re labels we create to feel separate, but underneath, the energy is the same.

Both of us had thrown shots. Both of us claimed the moral high ground. Both of us reacted when the other hit a nerve.

But here’s the pivot — when her jab didn’t land, she moved into victimhood. That’s not random. Victimhood has rewards: sympathy, allies, and a flipped narrative. Suddenly she wasn’t the attacker, she was the attacked.

The point of non-duality is this: there is no fixed villain or victim. The roles dissolve the moment you stop believing in them. Once I saw that, I kept playing — without being owned by the game.

The Public Thread

Eternal Moment Photography:
Eternal Moment Photography

Braelynn Carson let’s start with full transparency. Yes, I have left a negative review for a business I had not personally hired. That was a single instance, and I’ve been open about it. It was done because I had serious concerns based on credible, direct accounts from people I trusted. I own that choice.

Now here’s the part you left out. You just did the exact same thing you’re accusing me of. You have never hired me for photography. You have never been my client. Yet you’ve chosen to post a public review, not based on personal experience with my work, but based on hearsay and your personal feelings toward me.

The difference between us is that I’m willing to acknowledge my actions for what they are, while you try to frame yours as some kind of objective warning. This is not an impartial review. It is a personal opinion dressed up as professional feedback, and it’s coming from someone who, by their own admission, has never engaged my services.

If you wanted to critique my work, you could have hired me, seen the results, and spoken from direct experience. Instead, you decided to get in the mud with me, which makes your criticism no more professional than the act you’re accusing me of.

If the standard is that reviews should only come from first-hand experience, then yours fails that standard. If we’re going to talk about reputations, let’s be honest about both sides.

And as for your dig about me “only being in the industry for a year” you’re right. I’ve been doing this for a year. And in that year, I’ve produced work and built connections that threaten people who’ve been coasting for a decade. If my progress in twelve months bothers you, it says more about your pace than my experience.

Braelynn Carson:
Eternal Moment Photography Receiving messages like this is a violation of personal boundaries and harassment. This is why professionalism and respect matter in online interactions.

Eternal Moment Photography:
Braelynn Carson Brea, that’s not harassment. If you look at the bottom of your own screenshot, Facebook literally gives you the choice to block, delete, or accept my message. That’s how the platform handles normal communication. And every time you circle back to me publicly, you’re actually weakening your own harassment argument. You can’t claim to want peace while keeping the fire stoked. I’m done here, the rest is on you.

Braelynn Carson:
Eternal Moment Photography Nathaniel, the mechanics of the platform don’t change the nature of unwanted, aggressive messages. Repeatedly messaging someone in a way that provokes, intimidates, or escalates conflict can be considered harassment, regardless of the options Facebook gives users. I am not engaging further, and any additional messages of this type will be documented.

Eternal Moment Photography:
Braelynn Carson Braelynn, definitions matter. Harassment is persistent, targeted contact you cannot reasonably opt out of. This thread is on my business page. You navigated here, chose to comment, chose to screenshot, and your own screenshot shows Facebook gives you options to block, delete, or report. That is the opposite of “can’t opt out.”

Public disagreement and receipts are not intimidation. If you truly meant “I am not engaging further,” use the block button and keep your word. If you reply again, you’re acknowledging this is voluntary debate, not harassment.

Document away. You’ll be documenting your participation.

Reflection: Facebook as the New Yellow Pages

From a conventional business perspective, my approach might seem reckless. Most owners guard their reputations like fragile glass. I knew exactly what I was doing.

Facebook business pages today are the modern Yellow Pages, but instead of “A A A” to get listed first, owners polish their review score like it’s sacred. Reviews aren’t how most people choose who to hire anymore; they’re an ego scoreboard.

That’s why I struck where it would sting most, not to ruin anyone’s business, but to watch the dynamic unfold. Sure enough, she reacted.

The fascinating part? Instead of staying on equal footing, she reframed herself as the target. One private courtesy message became “harassment” in public. That move turned the narrative from “I engaged” to “I was attacked.”

And that’s where the non-duality lesson lands: in the moment, there’s no pure attacker or victim. Both of us were defending, seeking validation, and reacting to nerves being hit. We were playing the same game, just in different costumes.

Once you see that, the board changes. You realize you’re not fighting “the other side” at all. You’re wrestling with your own reflection.