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.