Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

The dark side of reputation

11 posts / 0 new

Last post

Sat, 2010-02-13 09:51

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

The dark side of reputation

Here is an interesting analysis by Gordon Tullock in Quarterly Journal of Economics, ”Adam Smith and the Prisoners’ Dilemma” (pdf). He says:

Quote:
If an individual has lost reputation, there is little or no reason why he should play cooperative strategies in the future. If anyone agrees to play with him, which is not terribly likely, it would take a large number of plays before his reputation for reliability was as good as that of the person who had not already blotted his copy book even if he played cooperatively each time. Under the circumstances, he should attempt to con people into games, and when he gets them in, the decision to play noncooperatively may well be perfectly rational. All of this would provide one more explanation for the tendency of people who once slipped to continue on that course of action. Thus, the habitual criminal or the ”shady” businessman who continues to be ”shady” are both responding rationally to their situation. Once they have a bad reputation, the cost of building up a reputation for reliability is extremely high.

I think this point has come up in earlier discussions about reputation economics, but rather than seeing it as breaking the reputation system it might be one of the dark sides of social life in the outer solar system. There is a class of people with bad reputations who simply have no incentives to play nice (beyond avoiding being so annoying they get thrown out an airlock). They are the real scum, and of course are shunned by everybody. Which makes them even more interested in faking their identities, participating in criminal endeavours (where lack of reciprocity is more common) and doing whatever it takes to get what they want. Note that the same effect also applies in the inner system: having a very bad c-rep might hurt you far more than a bad reputation today, because current reputations are so local and unstable. So the hypercorp that is losing its rep might actually decide to play hardball because it has little to lose. With more forgetful/forgiving reputations they would maybe instead just lay low for a while after a scandal.

—

Wed, 2010-03-31 03:39

standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture

Re: The dark side of reputation

I, for one, think the rep economy has several "dark sides". Your point above is very interesting, and adds to my nuanced view of rep networks (as opposed to the very idealistic view presented in the core rules). As I wrote in another thread (http://www.eclipsephase.com/rep-inflexible-and-oppressive)

Quote:
a rep economy seem more oppressive. The successful, ambitious, skilled etc will naturally obtain more rep, and thereby more power. That rep is tied to you – once you are recognized as a low rep person, this is what YOU are, and you will be treated accordingly. In a “capitalistic” economy, at least you are (or rather: your credit status is) more anonymous, and you can always in any way obtain money and thereby power / freedom.

—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:04

Decivre

Re: The dark side of reputation

I think one fair thing to note is that to some degree, all economies assume a level of participation. Traditional economies assume that those who don't participate do not have money. Reputation economies assume that those who don't participate have a low rep score. This doesn't change. What does change is that the person who does not participate can, at least to some degree, still utilize their reputation for favors. Even a person with 0 reputation can invoke a trivial favor. This gives it a significant advantage over traditional economies: even the most isolated people in a reputation economy should be able to receive the basic trivial necessities for life, and there is no particular need for a welfare system or whatnot. The economy assumes that people give to others on merit of the fact that it will be positive to their reputation. While yes, a person with less rep has [i]less[/i] to lose, no one really has [i]nothing[/i] to lose. Enough negative or selfish behavior is likely to get someone blacklisted. A hypercorp who plays hardball is likely to get cut out of the Consortium, and lose any and all access to Consortium assets, which would be a heavy blow to any business in the inner system. While that may give them greater incentive to act selfishly, it also gives them incentive to work toward redemption.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:26

Arenamontanus Arenamontanus's picture

Re: The dark side of reputation

Decivre wrote:
I think one fair thing to note is that to some degree, all economies assume a level of participation. Traditional economies assume that those who don't participate do not have money.

This is also true in non-money economies such as hunter-gatherers, where people who do not contribute do not get to eat... when their reputation runs out. Because in practice hunter-gatherer groups apparently tend to be pretty egalitarian, and do share resources with "unproductive" members (children, the old, the sick). Up to a point. From what I have seen in papers on hunter-gatherer mortality unproductive members have a noticeable high mortality rate from "accidents" and outright violence. Being an orphan in such a tribe is not nice at all. Still, what is regarded as unproductive or disloyal changes with the economy. Value can take many forms - food, tools, services, coordination, new ideas or happiness. In EP, food and material resources have lost a lot of their importance while demands for services, coordination and creativity are high. In many societies it is worse to not invent new things and keep silent on the mesh than just sitting around consuming food and space. This might be one of the key differences between the scum and the other autonomists. The scum doesn't really want to contribute except if it is an enjoyable activity, while the autonomists think it is important to contribute to their societies (whether by extropian trading, anarchist free sharing or the society-building of the Titanians) and that their societies must also progress. They are ideologically driven, and really want to prove that their cultural approach is the right one by out-innovating, out-servicing and out-reputing the others. The scum do not really care. In practice individuals are of course all along this spectrum, but the societal mores seem to draw in different directions. If you do not fit in with your society's expectations, your reputation will plummet.

—

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:38

Decivre

Re: The dark side of reputation

Arenamontanus wrote:
This is also true in non-money economies such as hunter-gatherers, where people who do not contribute do not get to eat... when their reputation runs out. Because in practice hunter-gatherer groups apparently tend to be pretty egalitarian, and do share resources with "unproductive" members (children, the old, the sick). Up to a point. From what I have seen in papers on hunter-gatherer mortality unproductive members have a noticeable high mortality rate from "accidents" and outright violence. Being an orphan in such a tribe is not nice at all. Still, what is regarded as unproductive or disloyal changes with the economy. Value can take many forms - food, tools, services, coordination, new ideas or happiness. In EP, food and material resources have lost a lot of their importance while demands for services, coordination and creativity are high. In many societies it is worse to not invent new things and keep silent on the mesh than just sitting around consuming food and space. This might be one of the key differences between the scum and the other autonomists. The scum doesn't really want to contribute except if it is an enjoyable activity, while the autonomists think it is important to contribute to their societies (whether by extropian trading, anarchist free sharing or the society-building of the Titanians) and that their societies must also progress. They are ideologically driven, and really want to prove that their cultural approach is the right one by out-innovating, out-servicing and out-reputing the others. The scum do not really care. In practice individuals are of course all along this spectrum, but the societal mores seem to draw in different directions. If you do not fit in with your society's expectations, your reputation will plummet.

To be fair, a reputation economy is essentially a technologically-assisted post-scarcity hunter-gatherer economy to begin with. The structure is such that a person's worth is measured by their contribution, and not by their ability to amass material. I think this is key to note, because many would argue that scarcity is the biggest problem that hunter-gatherer economies faced. Since value was not based on the amassing of materials, hunter-gatherer societies had problems creating a surplus of goods, which is promoted by traditional economy. In many ways, reputation systems are the full circle evolution of ancient economies... the hunter-gatherer culture works perfectly in a society where resources are no longer a scarcity due to the ability to completely recycle materials. That said, while it is a disadvantage that someone theoretically has to fit themselves within the mores of their society in order to succeed in a reputation economy, the advantage of this is that it is easier to act in a way that suits a society than it is to act rich in a traditional economy. In fact, people basically need to fit to society's expectations even today. That's the beauty of a reputation economy: we all are essentially already forced to conform to society to at least some degree, but a reputation economy allows us to profit from it.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:39

standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture

Re: The dark side of reputation

Decivre wrote:
I think one fair thing to note is that to some degree, all economies assume a level of participation. Traditional economies assume that those who don't participate do not have money. Reputation economies assume that those who don't participate have a low rep score. This doesn't change. What does change is that the person who does not participate can, at least to some degree, still utilize their reputation for favors. Even a person with 0 reputation can invoke a trivial favor. This gives it a significant advantage over traditional economies: even the most isolated people in a reputation economy should be able to receive the basic trivial necessities for life, and there is no particular need for a welfare system or whatnot. The economy assumes that people give to others on merit of the fact that it will be positive to their reputation. While yes, a person with less rep has [i]less[/i] to lose, no one really has [i]nothing[/i] to lose. Enough negative or selfish behavior is likely to get someone blacklisted. A hypercorp who plays hardball is likely to get cut out of the Consortium, and lose any and all access to Consortium assets, which would be a heavy blow to any business in the inner system. While that may give them greater incentive to act selfishly, it also gives them incentive to work toward redemption.

Let's not forget that today's traditional economies have "reputation" also, although not in a formalised way as in EP. Branding and marketing is one example of this. Reputation today also explains - partly - why companies and individuals give to charity or in other ways actively get involved in helping the poor/disadvantaged. The reason why persons in EP with zero rep still get their basic needs met is also [i]partly[/i] explained by rep (nanofabricators and other technical improvements are equally important reasons). It is true that you do not have everything to lose just because you have a low rep score, but my point (if not OP's) is that a low rep score ties to your ego, whilst a lack of monetary funds is less stigmatic.

—

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:43

Decivre

Re: The dark side of reputation

standard_gravity wrote:
Let's not forget that today's traditional economies have "reputation" also, although not in a formalised way as in EP. Branding and marketing is one example of this. Reputation today also explains - partly - why companies and individuals give to charity or in other ways actively get involved in helping the poor/disadvantaged. The reason why persons in EP with zero rep still get their basic needs met is also [i]partly[/i] explained by rep (nanofabricators and other technical improvements are equally important reasons). It is true that you do not have everything to lose just because you have a low rep score, but my point (if not OP's) is that a low rep score ties to your ego, whilst a lack of monetary funds is less stigmatic.

I highly disagree. Depending on the location, the destitute and poor can be treated very badly, solely by merit of being poor. Those with no money are stigmatized as being a "burden on the economy", and that often is used to justify horrific acts. Moreover, the poor have far worse access to protection, health and security... as the poor generally mingle with the poor. This can be seen in the EP universe in the form of the clanking masses, and in real life through visiting shanty towns and other transient sublocales in various parts of the world.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2010-03-31 07:53

standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture

Re: The dark side of reputation

Quote:
I highly disagree.

Perhaps you misunderstood me (my fault!). I didn't mean to say that being poor today never carries shame/exclusion, I meant that it is not a [b]mark of disgrace[/b] (i.e. stigma). It is widely recognised (at least in modern Western societies) that poverty is not primarily a function of your person, but rather the situation you are in. As soon as a poor person today gets a job, wins the lottery, whatever, he is not viewed as poor. And social factors aside, [b]economically[/b] we do not prevent the poor from becoming rich (at least not deliberately). In EP it is the other way around: you are poor (i.e. have low rep score) because of who you are and what you (don't) do, it's your own fault, we do not want to have anything to do with you. Hence, you are easier trapped in "poverty".

—

Wed, 2010-03-31 08:13

Decivre

Re: The dark side of reputation

standard_gravity wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood me (my fault!). I didn't mean to say that being poor today never carries shame/exclusion, I meant that it is not a [b]mark of disgrace[/b] (i.e. stigma). It is widely recognised (at least in modern Western societies) that poverty is not primarily a function of your person, but rather the situation you are in. As soon as a poor person today gets a job, wins the lottery, whatever, he is not viewed as poor. And social factors aside, [b]economically[/b] we do not prevent the poor from becoming rich (at least not deliberately). In EP it is the other way around: you are poor (i.e. have low rep score) because of who you are and what you (don't) do, it's your own fault, we do not want to have anything to do with you. Hence, you are easier trapped in "poverty".

I still disagree. In a reputation economy, getting ahead is as simple as starting to participate. This is much easier to do in a reputation economy. For instance, an employer could hire any number of employees within a reputation economy, because there is no need to pay employees via money... their earnings will be in reputation increase from their customers. To that end, starting a business is significantly easier because there is no expectation of starting capital. Because of these merits, unemployment is largely caused by lack of desire, rather than lack of opportunity (as is the case in traditional economies). Reputation economies are tax-free, inflation-free, and allow for a person to subsist and still purchase even with absolutely 0 reputation. The only way to truly screw yourself in such an economy is to get blacklisted, which is akin to becoming a criminal in our current economy, and equally troubling.

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]

Wed, 2010-03-31 10:42

#10

standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture

Re: The dark side of reputation

I think there is conceptual confusion. When you say "reputation economy" you seem to take certain things for granted, for example access to nanofabricators and other technology (mining, logistics etc) and abundant resources/raw materials? Whilst this may be more or less the case in EP(*), it does not follow that it is always the case in all reputation economies. Moreover, if you have these underlying conditions, people would be fed and housed just as well in a non-rep system, i.e. the minimum standard of living would be equally high. My point is that it is not a condition of the rep system, but of the economic situation in the society in question. The rep system is a system of exchange, not a system of production or allocating resources or what have you. And, as a system of exchange, it is not cold, anonomous and indifferent (like money), but personal, judgmental and emotional. IMHO. (*) I still think transhumans in year 10 A.F. have limited/scarce resources, e.g. (depending on where in the solar system you live) energy, carbons, metals. But that's another discussion.

—

Wed, 2010-03-31 21:34

#11

Decivre

Re: The dark side of reputation

standard_gravity wrote:
I think there is conceptual confusion. When you say "reputation economy" you seem to take certain things for granted, for example access to nanofabricators and other technology (mining, logistics etc) and abundant resources/raw materials? Whilst this may be more or less the case in EP(*), it does not follow that it is always the case in all reputation economies. Moreover, if you have these underlying conditions, people would be fed and housed just as well in a non-rep system, i.e. the minimum standard of living would be equally high. My point is that it is not a condition of the rep system, but of the economic situation in the society in question. The rep system is a system of exchange, not a system of production or allocating resources or what have you. And, as a system of exchange, it is not cold, anonomous and indifferent (like money), but personal, judgmental and emotional. IMHO. (*) I still think transhumans in year 10 A.F. have limited/scarce resources, e.g. (depending on where in the solar system you live) energy, carbons, metals. But that's another discussion.

Actually, it is the case in all existing true reputation economies. Most locations which have scarcity issues in EP actually have traditional or transitional economies. Those locations with true reputation economies usually assume total access to nanofabrication technology. Also note, post-scarcity does not mean that resources cannot remain rare. Rather, post-scarcity assumes that people have the means to extract or recycle resources in order to remain virtually self-sustaining. For instance, nano-fabrication technology is so advanced that you can crap in a toilet, recycle it, and turn it into a pizza. You never need throw anything away, because anything can be reused as something else. To that end, extracting materials from an asteroid is as simple as turning on your disassembler. Post-scarcity assumes the ease of resource gathering and utilization has rendered most products and goods free, not that there is necessarily an actual decrease in rarity (the name is misleading).

—

Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]