May I take a stab at a metaphore? (Was Re: Single model or framework for reputation/trust)

Ed Gerck wrote:

>Alan DeKok wrote:
>
>  
>
>>        Reputation is a strong indicator of future behavior.
>>    
>>
>
>Not in the real-world. Reputation is a measure of past behavior.
>Surely, an indicator of future behavior can use reputation as one of its
>inputs. Reputation per se, however, is not an indicator of anything
>except that which *has* occurred and, even then, not objectively.
>
>For example, without a behavior model (which needs to be made
>explicit), there is no indication possible for future behavior, even
>though all relevant reputation data may be available.
>
>In Russell's example, the chicken was portrayed with a very naive
>behavior model: what you see today, you will see tomorrow. This
>model shunts the reputation input to the output of the predictor.
>The farmer had no reputation of evil intent, so that's how the farmer
>will behave in the future. Of course, this model involves a leap of faith
>and that's exactly why it failed.
>
>Russell cleverly used the word 'chicken' to describe this naive model.
>A fox would behave differently and would not have considered that
>reputation is a strong indicator of future behavior.
>
>  
>
With all due respect to Bertrand Russell, I have what I think is a
better, or at least a different metaphore.

We're all familiar with the story of a down-on-his luck boxer.  He falls
in with some corrupt gamblers.  Suddenly, he starts winning again.  He
becomes famous and successful.  What he doesn't know is that the gambler
has been fixing the fights and this boxer's opponents have been throwing
the matches.  "Take a dive" is the slang term for it.  Then, one day the
gambler orders the boxer to "take a diver", because the gambler has bet
heavily against the boxer.  Usually, the story focusses on the ethical
issues facing the boxer, but for this metaphore, I want to focus on the
trust issues faced by the gamblers who are opposing the gambler who has
fixed the fight.  The other gamblers, who obviously have no knowlege of
these behind-the-scenes shenanigans, bet heavily on the favorite but
because the fight is rigged, they are going to lose.  The fighter's
reputation as a winner is really a facade, a potemkin village.

One of the problems with a reputation based system is that the system is
susceptible to manipulation by third parties, the gambler in the story
above.  Another problem is that it is prone to misunderstanding.  For
example, there was a pedophile who was arrested a couple of weeks ago
and everybody expressed astonishment because he went to church every
sunday.  The fact that this guy goes to church has nothing to do with
the fact that he is a child molester.  But some people assume that only
honest people go to church.

Or consider this not-very-hypothetical:  We've been e-mailing each other
back and forth on this list for a while, and we've been having this high
brow discussion about trust, and ethics, and computability, and
hopefully we have satisfied one another as to our bona fides.  Right?
But now, I have lost my job (which is **not** hypothetical -anybody need
a linux sysadmin?) and because of outsourcing to India, I am unlikely to
get another job any time soon, although I understand Wal Mart is
hiring.  So, in desperation, I send this mailing list an ad for diet
suplements.  Since I have had a lot of correspondence with this list
back and forth, it is likely I have a good reputation.  But my change in
fortunes has induced me to throw away my reputation for some short term,
crass commercial gain.  True, it takes some work to establish a
reputation and probably a spammer wouldn't work that hard, but still.....


Sincerely yours,



Jeff