My undergraduate is in psychology. I am currently a graduate student of mental health counseling (which is adjacent to psychology). But yeah I’ll weigh in:
So, first off; in general people have a negativity bias. We perceive, process, and interpret negative information faster and more readily than we do positive information. Negative stimuli have more emotional salience to us than do positive stimuli. This is evolutionarily adaptive: you can only be so happy, so healthy, so comfortable. But you can be very, very dead. Death is the ultimate negative consequence and it is permanent. So we notice and process adverse stimuli more than positive stimuli because the benefit of something can never be as high as the negative consequence of something else: namely, death. You didn’t notice some blueberries; okay, so you’re a little hungrier than you might have been but you’ll live. You didn’t notice that colorful frog? Now you’re dead. While this evolved to keep us alive, it tends to generalize to, well, everything. The “Princess and the Pea” is a very apt tale. In Buddhism it’s called “duhka” - the general “unsatisfactoriness” of life. Nothing is ever quite good enough, and bad things seem so bad, without limit to how bad they can be.
A loss feels like it hurts more than a gain feels like a pleasure. This is why compromise is so difficult: a compromise means a gain, but also a loss. Humans want things optimized: only gains. Any loss incured feels like it “taints” and “spoils” the gain. And this has been replicated in research over and over. So whenever people complain, we have to try to take an objective look: how bad is it actually? But we also have to take the emotional valence into consideration, because people will not always respond to an objective analysis. We respond emotionally, even the most “rational” of us. Haidt describes it best when he draws on the analysis of the elephant and the rider. Our “rational, enlightened” selves are the rider. But try as he might, the rider just can’t seem to make the elephant - our more primal, instinctual, and emotional-driven selves - to go where he wants it to. Aristotle had a similar analogy of the charioteer and the two dogs, or was it the dog and the pig? I forget. But we saw this play out with the “waste” mechanic: despite all the wonderful and good changes made to mining, and despite the fact that waste is a backloaded mechanic that doesn’t actually affect anyone’s per hour yield, people still whine and whine and whine about “waste” or “residue”, simply because of negative perception and negativity bias.
Anyway:
As far as attitude: I tend to think of things in terms of personality psychology, and for this we have the term “temperament”, although that is falling out of use a bit. Temperament refers to your general tendency to respond to stimuli in a certain way, and to your general tendency to adopt emotional states. For example, someone who is very high in trait “neuroticism” responds to negative stimuli (perceived or actual) more rapidly, to a higher degree, and for a long period of time than someone who is lower in that trait. Temperament is largely biological in nature, but their are environmental influences.
To speak to your infographic: people are very adaptive and we are amazing mimics. We observe other people, and when those people are successful (at things we value), we tend to create a “model” of them in our brains and try to “act them out” in order to get to where we want. We also see other people behaving certain ways, and failing, and try to avoid behaving in those ways (the whole “making an example out of someone” thing).
People also respond to incentives and do seek the most efficient ways to get what they want, whether that be ISK/hr or kills/hr, or social influence, whatever. So anytime there’s a mechanics change to the game, people will respond based on incentives.
A final note: people don’t always know what’s best for them. Yes, HiSec miners may want to be able to mine in perfect safety and immunity from being PvP’d. People want things to be easy and safe for them. But ease and safety is not actually good for people. It results in boredome, a loss of felt meaning or significance to things, and can lead to depression and existential dispair and, in extreme cases, death by suicide. At best, you have a bunch of bored nihilists who want some excitement and find all sorts of excuses, either political and ideologically based, or more honest and just straight bitter and resentful, to go out and cause all sorts of chaos and suffering in others. In the context of an online game: people get what they want (safety, ease, mechanics that favor their playstyles), then become bored and leave for something more interesting - never once making the connection that it was the challenge and difficulty that kept them engaged. And that is a big problem in EVE Online right now.
but you have to take into account that if you post ideas often enough with enough logic and reasoning sometimes CCP will start to think its their own idea and impliment it into the game, even if you get no credit for it its still a win imo 