public + private reputations

eBay is an example of a public reputation system. What motivates users to provide feedback? What motivates them to be honest? Are they equally motivated to provide positive and negative feedback? Compare the relationship of the feedback provider with the subject of the feedback and with the audience for the feedback. What influence does this has on the reliability of the system?

as an occasional user of ebay nowadays, in the initial stages (my membership infancy) i tended to give feedback after a transaction, either reminded by the other as a reciprocal courtesy ("please provide feedback for me, i'll do for you") or if something went disastrously wrong (which was very rare). now i hardly do so, because it takes effort to manuever through ebay's site to rate, as well as decide if my experience was truly 'positive.' i would suspect that users would be motivated to provide feedback if (1) they were reminded through email or messaging to do so, preserving ebay as a robust and self-maintaining community (i.e. purely member courtesy), (2) there was some sort of reward to offset the "cost" of providing feedback (e.g. rating a seller would give you a chance to win a daily giveaway from ebay), (3) something in the transaction was noticeably extraordinary (either uberwonderful, like many freebies and samples along with your order, or utterly terrible, like a no-show or an item that was extremely ill-described), (4) if it gave them incentive in the long-run (the more ratings they give, the higher benefits or prestige they accumulate in the system) or the short-run (giving a rating would warrant a small microdiscount on their next transaction), (5) the buyer and seller had an established relationship and would want to continue cordial business relationships, or (6) if there was a public display of showing how many transactions the user participated in comparison to how many of those the user rated (i.e. "cyberbuyer01 has given feedback to 20 of his 56 transactions", or to mask quantity and reflect quality, "cyberbuyer01 has given feedback to 38% of his transactions). this way, the pressure of peer comparison and public display of trustworthiness and followup-ship would encourage users to consummate their auction dealings fully with a rating.

for users to provide honest feedback, there are different cases. i believe there should be a more robust rating system other than +, -, or neutral. there are different components to a transaction, like timeliness, quality, communication, etc. if one could rate on different facets (similar to epinions, or zdnet, where things from 'value' to 'ease of use' to 'would recommend to others' are addressed) . that way, a user could honest report 'this person had great communication, although the item was a little shoddier than expected' with different ratings on different criteria, without completely generalizing the entire experience with a single + or - rating. in this situation, the user would most likely put a + because the average experience was positive although there were a few blips the seller could have improved. the comments area can also be very valuable for honest feedback; the text is provided for others to read if they wish, with clearer details on what exactly happened. in this way, people can defend their ratings extensively.

the 'dishonesty' of putting generous positives instead of malicious negatives seems to be the trend. unwarranted positives occur to soften an online critical blow, or easy forgiveness. perhaps different methods of rating would help. 'was your experience positive' might be less helpful that 'would you do business with this seller again' or 'would you recommend it to a friend'... something that reflects a more personal connection with the transaction might infuse more honesty into it. otherwise, it's like a poll, survey, or test, where users may feel disconnected with the process and click 'this whole thing was fine' without much thought.

as for malicious negatives, the wronged party could petition the moderator of the site, and after further investigation, the rating would be erased or modified. i could see a scenario in which the wronged party would put an initial investment (he/she pays a fee to have the transaction undergo inquiry), and if the party was indeed wronged, the malicious rater would pay a penalty to the wronged party and feedback would update accordingly. this way, a wronged party would only prosecute if they really thought their reputation was endangered unnecessarily, and malicious raters would think twice before reporting something abnormally dishonest.

as for the current system, i believe users are more inclined to provide positive feedback if they're reminded somehow of their duty, and everything went okay. i do think that users provide negative feedback (without external reminder) if the transaction was abhorent. so the motivation is different for different situations. neutral to positive to 'positive average' to 'slightly negative average' experiences receive a +, whereas 'extremely positive negative' experiences receive a -. i would say the motivation to rate a slightly negative to neutral experience as - would be low, given the common courtesy we all grant on community members, a cordial business forgiving. who wants to brand someone as NEGATIVE when (1) you're complete strangers and (2) you're only going to have one or few transactions with this person anyway? branded someone as NEGATIVE is a clear public admonishment, warning others to 'stay away', since negative ratings are quite prominent (even one can bruise a business reputation) when viewing someone's profile.

therefore, because users are tentative to brandishing someone with whom that they've only marginally interacted with an online scarlet letter of sorts, and with high probability of not doing business dealings any longer, the reliability of the system is scant. if i do business with someone who has a very good record established online, yet i felt our particular dealing to be a bit shady, i'd feel guilty if i permanently and visibly tainted the seller's reputation (with my name signed behind it), a reputation that would directly affect all of this seller's future transactions. that's a huge responsibility on the rater's part, to provide feedback on this one particular instance without thinking too much about how it will reflect the seller on all transactions in aggregate. if every buyer who rates one seller with a thus-flawless record, for instance, is afraid of being the first to admit that the seller isn't positive because they'd be the 'ruiner', then no one will cast the first stone, and the seller would continue to give slightly sub-par service while still maintaining a good profile.

Describe in clear and concise detail the costs and benefits to the participants in a model public reputation system of the different possible actions they may make (i.e. deceptive or honest acting; punishing or not punishing transgressors). Do the same for a model private (gossip based) system. Don't forget issues such as the possible mismatch between the rater and the audience, etc.

[online!]

public : costs to honest ::
- if the rating is negative and traceable, the ratee may seek retribution by reciprocating a negative rating or spreading dishonest or malicious information about the rater
- if a buyer on ebay is known to give honest, if negative, reviews, sellers may manuever or manipulate the system in order to avoid transactions with this buyer, therefore removing the buyer's full choice or opportunity of goods
- if the seller gives a buyer a negative rating, it might pose a serious risk for further business with this buyer or other potential buyers who will fear a negative rating themselves
- a person who rates the other as 'negative' suffers guilt that they are publicly marring the other's reputation for countless others to view and judge from, a person they may never encounter again

public : benefits to honest ::
- if a rating is negative, the ratee will be able to more visibly and effectively recognize their transgressions and proactively improve or renew their reputation to improve the community for the general good
- if a transaction is honestly rated positive, both the rater and ratee are in favorable terms, and their public reputation looks good for both their future transactions
- if more ratings are honest (positive or negative), it may remove the stigma attached to the stray negative rating (i.e. the fear of casting the first stone dissipates)

public : costs to dishonest ::
- if a dishonest rater is discovered, others will be wary of dealing with this person, fearing an undeserved poor rating on their public reputation
- if a subpar seller is rated positive overall because of reasons dealing with courtesy or persuasion, for example, future buyers who may feel comfortable dealing with this 'good' seller may end up suffering from worse service than they expected
- conversely, if a reasonably good seller is rated poor when the transaction was just fine, the seller's reputation is marred unnecessarily, which will cost them in future business as other buyers might seek other sellers with more positive ratings

public : benefits to dishonest ::
- a subpar seller that receives undeserved positive ratings will continue business with others with a positive appearance, and may abuse his admirable reputation to cheat unsuspecting buyers
- positive ratings, even when inaccurate, can prolong the 'everything is fine' feeling, giving all parties an ego stroke, and blossom feelings of satisfaction
- a buyer may be able to negotiate a reduced price of sale if a positive rating is promised, or vice versa; bribery via marks of reputation

public : costs to punishing transgressors ::
- users will be more wary of giving a negative rating, in fear of the ratee prosecuting them as dishonest; positive ratings will be inflated
- perhaps the users of the community need to pay a membership or maintenance fee in order to support the moderation of the system

public : benefits to punishing transgressors ::
- the ratings system will be more reliable if dishonest ratings are punished and minimized; users will be more likely to believe in the system and be motivated to uphold their good reputations in order to continue beneficial relations with others
- raters will be more confident that their comments /ratings will be read as useful and accurate

public : costs to not punishing transgressors ::
- unreliable raters can infiltrate the system, thereby diluting the reliability of ratings and basically rendering the system useless and inaccurate
- users will be very cautious as to avoid any risk of reputation soiling; this cautiousness may cause stagnation of the system and unease during encounters

public : benefits to not punishing transgressors ::
- users would not feel as obliged to post positive ratings; they wouldn't fear retribution or public ostrasization
- retaining freedom of expressing one's personal belief of the situation; how can an outsider judge whether someone's rating is viably true or false?

[gossip!]

private : costs to honest ::
- if someone makes an honest, yet negative, remark about somebody else, they risk revenge or retribution on their own reputation; rumors can fly
- a negative report on someone, even if honest, may harm feelings, cause distrust, sever relationships, etc
- outward behaviors become falsified and superficial, as others maintain their 'best behavior' to avoid a slip-up to be passed among the others via gossip; less risks or social 'mistakes' are ventured; authenticity gets smothered by niceties and perhaps-fake cordialities

private : benefits to honest ::
- if one's remarks are eventually known to be reliable and accurate through eventual actions and words of others (proof of concept), then other's will trust this person's testimonies in the future (benefit to the truthful teller)
- if there are established reliable tellers, then the ones who benefit are those who act in good spirit and have others see them as such; their good reputation is cross-checked by many
- a social misfit who hears what others think of them may be motivated to change or check their behavior in order to minimize offending others

private : costs to dishonest ::
- if someone spreads false rumors about one or more persons and is discovered, their credibility is greatly disminished
- offensive people who don't possess a negative reputation (for any given reason, like other people are afraid of being discourteous or impolite by saying so) may obliviously continue to be obnoxious or nasty because they are mislabelled as agreeable people

private : benefits to dishonest ::
- if a negative spell is given a positive spin, human mistakes are forgiven + forgotton... transgressions are elided over; conflicts are smoothed or put into perspective
- a person may give a dishonest impression of someone if they are accepted into a desirable social group; e.g. a teen might fawn over a certain person that they secretly dislike, in order to feel more accepted by a clique at school

private : costs to punishing transgressors ::
- exclusion from a desirable social group, or fear of looking too judgmental; e.g. i won't rat out my boss who's spreading nasty rumors because i don't want to lose my job
- quelling personal freedom of opinion of others; bad-mouthing someone might be an effective form of catharsis

private : benefits to punishing transgressors ::
- someone who spreads false gossip or rumors can be ostrasized, and others can live with less fear that their reputation will be tainted or questioned
- good people will be more motivated to maintain their good image

private : costs to not punishing transgressors ::
- rumors can run rampant, wrongly marring otherwise reputable people; e.g. people might not want to talk to this girl because they have heard stories about her that render her untrustworthy or dispicable, even though the stories are completely untrue
- tongues can run either way; reliability of the word-of-mouth system is more diluted; more costly methods to confirm suspicions on people may be necessary

private : benefits to punishing transgressors ::
- good people can maintain their good reputation more easily
- the motivation to be honest runs high if dishonesty warrants a high cost of social punishment

Describe a real life situation in which reputation information is exchanged, either publicly or privately. Ebay has been extensively written about, so pick something else. You can use Amazon.com reviews, teacher recommendations, gossip exchange in a social group, etc. Describe the situation in detail. Is the information reliable? What keeps it so? What is the relationship among subjects, raters and audience? What are the costs and benefits the participants receive? How well does this fit with the model you described above?

let's envision a scenario that a prospective graduate student is visiting a department of choice and seeking the best fit for an academic advisor. this student (named josi, say) isn't terribly familiar with the professors, save for some papers she's read online and perusal of the academic websites. josi arrives at the university and has some interviews for the day, but beforehand she has some time to scope out the different styles of the professors. she has arranged to speak with some of the current graduate students; in these informal talks she will be able to ask questions regarding the professor. the current students probably will be very reliable and truthful in their testimony, since they have a personal connection (and empathy) for the prospective, and they work very closely with their respective advisors. the costs for being honest are relatively low: students who exchange more dicey, truthful gossip have an assumption that such details ("prof smith is a wonderful person, but he's so inaccessible!") won't be aired publicly or extensively. the benefits for being honest are high: telling about one's experience helps everyone involved, and it's an act of good will to ensure that josi gets a good match (and saves some headache in the long-run). dishonest testimony from students would be rare, probably with fear that the professor might be in earshot, being paranoid that certain words would eventually be traced back to them, or having an established decorum to not say anything negative about anyone else. the relationship between the current students and josi remains very close; the students were once in josi's shoes, and can understand the confusion and determination of such a quest. graduate students are a reliable source because they have no incentive to lie to a peer. josi realizes this and is grateful; she's convinced that the students she's talked to are honest. however, she knows also to take everything with a grain of salt, because sometimes clashes are due to differences in personality, habits, experience, etc that's very individual-based rather than general.

josi then has time to go to the library and google some of the professors she's interested in. each professor's website contains lots of information, from their CV (very much reliable, since others in the field can easily view to cross-check or confirm facts) to classes they're teaching (reliable: can talk to students in said class) to (perhaps) their personal page with pictures of family and friends. josi can also see professional references to their papers. having lots of references to oneself is a signal of prestige within an academic community, and is usually reliable if the field is broad and established with many contributing parties. after viewing lots of papers and seeing current projects, josi has a better sense of what their styles are like, but online profiles can definitely skew her perceptions. if a professor has an ugly, ill-designed website, is that a direct reflection on them, or did they just have a non-artistic UROP code it up for them? if a professor has a staid, solemn picture of themselves online, is that because they're traditional and boring, or just a professional digital facade to a joking and vibrant real-live personality? since online sources are very much public, and in this case professionally-oriented, indicators of the person are filtered down to pose a professional/creative/prolific profile. helpful to josi, but not terribly indicative on what kind of advisor they'd be.

she then goes off to her interviews, talking one-on-one with each professor. seeing them in the flesh carries a lot more meaning now, after processing the words from the other fellow students and having an idea of their public online profile. here, she can bounce ideas around and balance others' experience with that of her own. now, individual personality and dynamics can take over, as josi has her own direct dealings. although the first impressions she gathers at the interviews won't necessarily point her in the direction of the best advisor (half an hour in an office is hardly indicative of behavior throughout months, years) she can get a feel for interaction style. the professor themselves are a mostly reliable indicator of who they are (since they are them), but it's up to josi to integrate her experiences with the words of others to make a final decision.

social identity

In "Prestige and intimacy", what are the costs to the women of incorrectly interpreting the men's signals? Of believing deceptive signals? What are the benefits to the women of signaling deceptively? The costs?

the paper indicates that females tend to perceive men's signals as indicators on how well they will treat them. a guy who is considerate and sensitive is taken as a gentleman, as someone who is not is a jerk. the cost to a girl who mistakes a gentleman for a jerk is relatively low; she will defer his advances and attention, and probably tell her friends about her perspective on the relationship. the cost to her entails overlooking a guy who could potentially care for her and tend to her needs, and pass up a rich friendship or relationship, but she most likely will be able to find another person soon to fill that role. there may be a chance that the gentleman will try harder to win her over, but she may get annoyed further and reject him completely. her costs in this scenario include passing up a valuable relationship, tolerating periods of exasperation, or suffered periods of loneliness.

if she mistakes a jerk for a gentleman, the female may allow the male to enter a more intimate sphere than she would have typically. this might occur if a genuine playboy seduces her with gifts and sensitive remarks with the hidden intention of selfish physicalities. the cost to a woman is much greater here... by opening herself up to be emotionally closer to the male, she becomes vulnerable to hurtfulness and distrust when the deception of the signals are apparent. not only would there be emotional damage, but perhaps physical as well if the male steps beyond the boundaries that the woman has set. time, money, and effort throughout the relationship would seem vain and wasted after the fact. there would be disrespect and bitterness on all levels.

these observations might explain why women tend to be more of the prey role than the predator, because they have more self-preservation investment by being choosy with their partner. there is a much greater loss if they select a male who is unbeneficial than if they pass up a male who is beneficial. especially in modern society, where a woman can more easily live independently, she has the greater power to choose with higher thresholds.

if a woman signals deceptively, it is to make herself more attractive or have higher prestige in the male's eye. attractiveness can be characterized by prestige, non-bitchiness, and sexiness. if she fakes her personal appearance to be more physically attractive, she will be able to attract more physically attractive men, which may raise her social status. by being more attractive overall, she will be able to draw a larger pool of possible men, from which she has a greater position of power to choose. she will more easily pick a male who is better (handsomer, taller, younger, smarter, funnier, richer, more considerate, etc) than one that she would be able to possibly attract with honest signals and with her same level of expectation and standards. the benefits can be quite desirable and lucrative, finding a man who can provide and love abundantly.

however, if the woman who signals deceptively is caught and punished, the suffered costs may vary from slight to significant. it depends on the level of the female's deception, and on the discrepancy from prestige of the male. the larger the discrepancy, i imagine the costs are higher; a kennedy-descendant male would probably be a lot more distressed to find out he was dating a high-school dropout than a woman who lied that she went to harvard instead of yale because of her fear of his familial connections. also, lying that you're 5 years younger than you really are is probably less costly than lying about your marriage status. on the lesser scale, the costs would include humiliation of being caught (while perhaps not even feeling remorse about the deception itself) and a soiled reputation, circulated via town gossip. more significant costs are estrangement from loved ones (as both a lover and a husband may leave her when finding out a mutual truth), loss of life's dependables (job, material possessions), and most of all, respect from female peers as well as male friends.

It is easy to conclude that all signals online are purely conventional - but is this too simple an interpretation? Examine some of the examples in Jacobson's article - are the signals purely conventional or are there assessment aspects to them also? What are they?

although signals online are conveyed through literal electronical text on a screen, there are some signals that i would classify on the edge of conventional, veering into assessment. some of jacobson's examples of signals are textual + paralinguistic cues (how someone might type or write something, physically, grammatically, and semantically), response latency in a chatting environment, and choice of username.

if someone was typing fluently in a specific language, and the reader was also fluent, that might signal that the sender was indeed well-versed in a certain country's culture. it would have to be more context-driven, but if the sender was consistently responding in natural, fluent form (and not mere roundabout translations) that would be a strong indicator. also, certain obscure emoticons and words (h@x0r) would indicate greater computer-programmer culture. if someone had typed responses which were relatively rapid and with all perfect grammar and spelling, it would be a strong signal of an educated, word-wise person. deception is possible with electronic spellcheckers and writing tools, but strong consistency and speed would heighten the reliability of the signal.

i would argue that if someone in a chat was consistently responding with alacrity and richness, that would be an assessment that they were engaged in the conversation: not multi-tasking, painstakingly reediting messages, or typing the same thing to a million other chat windows. it would indicate a quality of focused attention and interest.

username choice can be borderline assessment signal if obscure enough that deception wouldn't be generally held as beneficial or likely. for example, if someone wanted to attract people that shared the same obsessive interest in radiohead, they might choose a username that alludes to a lyric on some obscure b-side track on the 1995 japanese import limited edition EP that only diehard fans would understand the reference. that way only the receivers of the signal who actually read it correctly (as an obscure radiohead reference that only fanatics would know and appreciately) would respond to the signal, and the signaller would also have the advantage of possibly attracting someone they specifically seek.

another assessment signal may be the online medium. more computer-savvy users might be on jabber or IRC, rather than AIM or MSN or ICQ; and usage of PGP keys with "web of trust" (which verifies a user's identity) might also increase the level of reliable signals.

Working with one or two other people in the class, go to a place (a cafe, etc) where you can observe people easily. Pick one person to observe and then *individually* write up your impression of them. What are the observable cues to their identity? What is your impression of them - how did you interpret these cues? Using Goffman's distinction between impression given and impression given off, do you think the public persona the person projected was the intended one? Think about what concepts and prototypes you are bringing to this interpretation. Now compare your impressions. How were they similar? How did they diverge? Did you observe different cues? Is the code you bring to the interpretation different than your classmates'?

on saturday evening, i went to infusions tea spa with francis and james, and while sipping our respective drinks, observed a young woman who was sitting with a young man at a table for two.

physically, she was tall and thin, with pale white skin and dark hair hanging past mid-shoulder. from my viewing angle, she had an all-black long puffy winter coat, black leather boots, reddish leather gloves peeking from the pockets, and a long colorful striped scarf. i took her fashion sense as sort of trendy, but a safe kind of fashionable. the overall black was generically stylish (nothing too personal or creative), and to me the colorful scarf (not handknit) seemed like a "fun" but conservative way to express herself through clothing. she is trying to be style-conscious, but is very reserved about it; as a person, i would guess she ventures toward trends but doesn't go out of her way to set them. her ears boast double-piercings, with shiny rhinestone-like studs. they were colored pink and blue, tackily sparkly, and could never be mistaken for diamonds. i often associate jewelry like this to teenybopper accessory stores like claire's, so i identified her as somewhat clinging onto her teenage persuasions; therefore, i labelled her as a student. (we were in allston, which is quite close to nearby colleges.) her hair was longish and stringy, parted in the middle, not styled in any particular fashion, and her face was bare of makeup. although she was mildly attractive, you could tell she was low-maintenance and either liked to keep things natural, or didn't apply too much effort to her appearance in that way. her pale complexion and thin frame led me to think of her as one who spends a lot of time curled up in her bed, reading english literature, and writing poetry in her journal. if she were more of an outdoorsy sort of person, she might be more muscular or have more color in her skin. i could totally see her as a humanities major, something to do with romance languages or history or writing, and not a math or sciences person. she had a feminine, poetic sort of aura. delicate features and long legs, like a gazelle. i would call her a dreamer, a romantic, an idealist.

as for her mannerisms, she singledly faced her companion, with her legs crossed, her head propped up on one hand, and occasionally sipping and chewing her bubble tea drink. it was immediately apparent that the guy was her boyfriend, because they traded drinks for a bit (to taste the other's flavor), which implies a strong intimacy because sharing straws is not something you do in normal platonic relationships; and they often held hands, stroked palms, and played with each other's fingers. (i wasn't close enough to be privy to their conversation, so i had to work from visual cues alone.) she displayed cute dimples when she smiled, on frequent occasion while conversing with the guy; the smiles were deep and sincere. from what i could tell, she liked being talkative, receptive, sensitive, and flirty: they touched hands often, and she would say something, looking up at him between sips of the drink. her legs were crossed and one arm clutched around her waist as she leaned forward, giving an intense and inquisitive look.

however, as the date lingered on (and on), i felt a subtle shift. she still had her head on her arm, which may be a sign of comfort, but to me she looked kind of bored, too tired to sit up straight. i had the feeling the couple had an established relationship; although they touched often and had an intimate conversing style, there were moments where she sort of stared into space, knawing her straw, sipping her drink, the awkward moments when you run out of things to talk about after spending so much time together. the guy had finished his drink long before she did; their pacing was off, and i took her slow consumption to be a sign of listlessness, a sip here and there, ho hum, the same date scenario every weekend. she looked tired. i got this feeling just from my own personal experience of loaded silences during never-ending dates. perhaps they had just had dinner together and now getting a treat afterwards (it was about 8pm).

however, during the times they were connected, she smiled and talked softly; i took her to be very loving and loyal. i admired her for her girlishness and likability for this guy, who i didn't really find attractive... he seemed to be finding stuff in the air to talk to her about, to impress her, to delight her. (i think she could do better.) one time, she took a cellphone call during her date! i find this (from my own moral standards) to be somewhat rude, not only when she's inside an establishment, but when she's on a date. perhaps i may be taking this too far, but i find it a miniscule sign of impatience (she could have returned the call when they went outside, for example, without interruption.)

overall, her patient, loving behavior toward the guy coupled with her petite sippings and her fair skin (and additionally, when we were trying to find chairs in the cafe, she was very friendly and helpful to us by offering a chair, smiling) led me to think of her as a very feminine, polite, natural, loyal, quiet, intimate, reserved, introspective person. some things she did not strike me as: avant-garde, aggressive, loud, spontaneous, dishonest, mischievous, excessive, greedy, gregarious. basically, she wasn't extreme-anything... very subdued sort of girl.

after comparing my notes with francis and james, it seemed like we were on the same wavelength for some things, but completely offbase for others. i would attribute it to a difference of (1) gender roles in a relationship, (2) western vs. eastern culture, and (3) thoughts on the opposite gender.

the two guys had similar ideas, so i'll just compare mine with theirs. one thing they had an advantage over me: they could see her shirt underneath her coat, which was apparently very low cut and dark blue; they attributed more sexiness and flirtiness to her than i did. also, they could occasionally hear what the couple was saying, so that extra context might have skewed the results.

we had diverging thoughts on her clothing. they thought her outfit was "elegant, stylish, and appropriate", whereas i thought it was conservative, boring, and needed color. maybe this is just our views on fashion, but as a girl, i could tell that she probably shopped at dept stores or more mainstream alleys than obscure boutiques or thrift stores, which definitely lowered her "stylish" rating on my scale. however, i have a suspicion that the guys tend to equate "body-conscious black" as stylish. however, i believe this is just a difference in personal preference and gender.

francis thought that her earrings were precious or diamonds, so her attributed more ladylikeness or classiness to her outfit. however, i took them as fakey and tacky, so our receptions of this signal was way off base. since i was once a teenage girl (sigh), i probably had more experience and associations in this arena. and additionally, they thought she was older, perhaps 28 or so, but i would disagree because of her youthful-style earrings.

they attributed more adventurousness and creativity to her, because the caucasian couple was outnumbered by the number of asians in the tea cafe. however, i wouldn't give them that much credit. i didn't really think the place was that exotic; the cafe was right next door to a college-frat-friendly hotdog + burger place and on the same block as many student hangouts. now, if she was sucking on smoked duck feet instead of daintily sipping sugared starch, i would be more impressed.

they thought she was very much into the guy because she was smiling, agreeing, listening, gentle; i would more reasonably say that she liked him enough on saturday, but i would predict they would break up shortly because he would bore her to death. (i hope!) they took her head-on-arm to be a dreamy-gaze-upon-him sort of pose; instead, i found it to be ennui, lazy comfort, tiredness aglow. it might be due to my experiences of tired dates; to the boys it might be their more idealistic date with a girl, that she would want to be all dreamy-weamy.

the west vs east thing also popped up. i took her quietness, politeness, girliness as a sign of conservativeness and soft-spokenness, which i personally think is rather boring. the boys, on the other hand, liked her style. coming from asia, they tended to think of american girls as more outward, aggressive, unladylike, and boyish (james demonstrated by flopping back on a chair, legs splayed akimbo) compared to women living elsewhere in the world; they were impressed by this american girl's elegance and obedience. therefore, they shone her in a more rosy light than i.

another difference brought about was how we characterized her. james and francis noticed i used a lot of labels ("dreamer", "idealist", "poet") which encompass myriad associations and social connotations within, while they tended to focus on her relationship to her boyfriend ("lovable", "loyal", "agreeable"). we would probably argue this occurrence due to western vs eastern sensibilities; james remarked, "we don't have these labels... even if we could translate perfectly, i still don't think asians tend to do that as much as americans do." we could trace this back to the motivation behind the "prestige and intimacy" paper, the art of branding others.

Do the same exercise with a person you observer online (in a newsgroup, on a homepage, on a dating site, etc)

we agreed to profile this girl, jessica eisenstein, a junior at MIT:
http://mit.thefacebook.com/profile.php?id=700463
some tidbits: she has a wirehog account, mechanical engineering major, went to public high school in southbury CT, has a boyfriend at MIT, does a radioshow both at MIT and in england, plays frisbee, has a huuuuuuuge list of indie music preferences, like "the virgin suicides" and "lost in translation," has lyrics as her favorite quotes, currently studying abroad at jesus college in the CME program, is a member of the Alpha Chi Omega fraternity, has 143 friends on thefacebook (a great number of which are at different universities), and her latest away message is "England is crazy". she's blonde, pretty, and smiling in the photograph, which has been updated since, feb 13 (yesterday), which means she cares about updating her public online persona. her photo on her profile before portrayed her, smiling, at an airport or train station or similar location, with a blue trench coat on, a camera clasped between her hands. now the featured photograph is her sharing a great, drippy bowl of icecream with her boyfriend, her spoon and tongue both outstretched, her dark bra/camisole straps protruding from her boatneck turquoise top, and her eyes on the sundae rather than at the camera. there's a second, melty, half-eated bowl of icecream on her other side, halfway out of the frame of the picture. perhaps she had one serving already, and encroaching on her boyfriend's bowl for her second...?

from her online profile, i would characterize her as technologically forward in a popular, but not hackerish, style. she has a wirehog account, which lets her trade media files with friends, and does media production, but her website is all FUBAR'd (she designed it in microsoft frontpage??) and she doesn't have "geeky" qualities like glasses, nonathleticism, and antisocialness. she seems quite lively and popular, with all her friends posted online, and her membership in a social club (fraternity). the long list of music groups (along with her two radio shows) indicates she loves music, and is very particular about which ones (they all were resoundingly indie/trendy/popularly obscure, like interpol, flaming lips, and the shins). she sounds like a happy, outgoing person, from her extensive and excessive passions in movies and music and her playful, let-me-eat-icecream photograph. she seems like the girl who doesn't care what anybody thinks by having hip, offbeat tastes. but i think really, deep down, she cares very much about her outward identity and crafts her profile to be the most attractively perfect hip, offbeat person. her profile almost seems too "cool" and indie to be realistic.

intro to signals

Why are there deceptive signals? Why are they a problem - and to whom?

deceptive signals arise when the signaller is able to benefit more through a dishonest signal than through an honest signal. deceptive signals are more likely to occur if either (1) the cost of dishonesty and possible punishment is worth the beneficial gain, (2) the cost of verification by the receiver is high and rarely paid, and/or (3) the cost of deception is low. they are a problem if the benefit to the dishonest entity is undeserved, and it deprives benefit and dilutes the reliability of those who signal honestly. the receivers must also pay a price if they choose to sink costs into verifying reliability of the signal, ensuring the truth of quality.

How reliable must a signal be for a signaling system to function? 100%? 51%?

the balance must lie between the the costs people are willing to pay, and the benefits received from giving off a certain signal.

How do signals become correlated with a quality? What happens when the signaler receiver interpret the signal differently?

... mismatch!

Describe two examples of signals in human society - one that is an example of an assessment signal and one that is a conventional signal.

For the first (assessment): how is the signal related to the quality? Is the signal costly? If so, how? Is it entirely reliable or are there deceptive forms of the signal?

having brilliant red hair and green eyes can be an assessment signal that a person's heritage is irish or of northern european descent. the correlation of signal to quality is quite high, given that people with these characteristics are generally perceived to be from these areas (and that is true a high percentage of the time, with few exceptions). red hair and green eyes are both recessive genetic traits and are naturally a rare combination.

the signal is costly in that for it to happen naturally, both parents need to carry the gene for it to be expressed in the offspring. however, the signal could be deceptively enacted if a person colored her hair with expensive techniques and dyes, bought green contacts, and applied makeup to skin for a complementary complexion (dotting reddish freckles on cheeks for seamless mimicry). unless the severity of deception is quite deep to ensure realism, the artificial coloring will look fake, and therefore the signal will not be successful. however, undergoing such a process to look a certain ethnicity is quite costly both in terms of money, one's own born identity and traits, and possible humiliation or rejection if the deception is discovered by others.

i would classify this signal as reliable because of the high costs of deception and relatively low benefits to the signaller (other than attracting those who might be particularly intriqued by irish/european people).

For the second (conventional): how is the signal related to the quality? Is this convention widespread or local to a small group? Is the signal frequently made deceptively? Is there a sanction against it? For both - what are the costs to the receiver in assessing the signal? Is the signal ambiguous - is there likely to be a mismatch between the sender's intent and the receiver's impression - or is there general agreement about the meaning of the signal?

carrying about an expensive, designer handbag is a conventional signal of women that, i believe, are now undergoing highly volatile transformations within the signalling evolution. if a woman carries a handbag that is branded visibly as from a high-end designer—e.g. louis vuitton, gucci, fendi, kate spade, christian dior—the quality of the wearer that is conveyed from the signal is that the woman is rich (so she can waste, in the veblen sense, a lot of money on an expensive accessory), fashionable (since the item is generally viewed as trendy and posh), and of a certain style attitude (for example, a laced versace gold lamé bag would signal a glamourous, sexy quality while a prim kate spade pink gingham tote would signal a preppy, well-bred socialite quality).

in my own experience, i believe the convention holds in areas where fashion news and trends are spread easily throughout the community (especially in large cities worldwide, although any town which distributes publications such as vogue or elle magazine would be prone). also, after some informal questioning of my male friends, i think the signal is primarily sent from females to other females, to indicate high social status and attractiveness, and invoke approval and envy. (my little poll reveals that most men have no clue about handbags, designer or otherwise, and they tend not to appoint any particular qualities to a girl based on the price or prestige of her bag.)

the cost of honestly owning a dior bag is relatively quite high (one goes for $1,175 on eluxury.com), versus a department store bag for about $40. however, a dishonest signal can be achieved by purchasing knockoff designer bags, which are convincing lookalikes with significantly cheaper price tags (under $100, sometimes under $50), on the black market. in china, the piracy abounds, with fakes reaching almost-perfect quality, with high-volume black market smuggling with mafia ties, etc. an illegal sanction definitely holds against fakes that copy the designer models exactly, but almost-like-but-not-quite models are able to slip by. some women find that the cost of buying a fake—chance of the fake being found out, guilty conscience of condoning merchandise counterfeiting, humility of shopping through an underground method, cheating oneself of quality and craftsmanship—is worth the benefit of deceptively signalling a quality of high-end fashion.

the cost for a receiver of the signal is quite low... they just have to view the bag and the person. the signal becomes nonexistent if the receiver does not know how to differentiate quality or worth of certain bags. you may view a cost of the receiver as time or energy spent researching prices or desirability on fashionable bags to ascertain a certain quality of the signaller. as for the intention versus inference situation, most fashionistas would be very good at spotting a fake, and so therefore the cost for someone with a knockoff bag to give off a deceptive signal around such people would be very high, in terms of being spotted immediately and the consequent humiliation and risks of social exclusion. however, perhaps in an environment that's less precise (maybe a suburban soccer mom neighborhood), the risk of a fake being discovered is lower, and the benefit of a deceptive signal would be higher (i.e. respect from other women). however, some mismatched signals might arise in any situation. a woman might think she's signalling glamour from her designer bag, but the receiver thinks the signaller is vain, wasteful, superficial, eager to please, conforming to trend, or hosting a sugar daddy. the social realm of women is quite complex, so i would think a lot of the signalling gets filtered by cultural expectations and/or catty competition. but as for now, as long as knockoff bags will continue to be available, the real designer items will be more flashy, more difficult to counterfeit, and more inaccessible to the general public to maintain the integrity of the original signal.