Re: Single model or framework for reputation/trust

Ed Gerck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >         Reputation is a strong indicator of future behavior.
> 
> Not in the real-world.

  And this is where I think progress in this discussion stops.

  For reasons why your statement is *grossly* incorrect, read any
number of books on psychology, criminal profiling, or related topics.
Reputation (i.e. public knowledge of past behavior) is a *very*
important indicator of future behavior, and no amount of denials can
change that.

> 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.

  You're playing word games here.  "Reputation is in the past, so it
can't predict.  But predictions *based* on reputation are OK."

  I hate condescending word games.  They're pathetic.

> In Russell's example, the chicken was portrayed with a very naive
> behavior model: what you see today, you will see tomorrow.

  As I said repeatedly, and you have consistently refused to
acknowledge, is that this is an IDIOTIC behavior model.  Only an idiot
would think that a model which uses "perfect predictions" was
realistic.

> Of course, this model involves a leap of faith and that's exactly
> why it failed.

  Why are you so stuck on the "leap of faith" nonsense?

>  Senders are not authenticated, so reputation cannot even be
> well-defined to begin with.

  Well, golly.  I guess a sender authentication system to help define
and control reputation wouldn't be an obvious step, would it?


  I'm sorry, Ed.  You're stuck on naive, simplistic models.  You're
playing word games which permit you to ignore more realistic models.
You refuse to acknowledge that trivial methods exist to work around
perceived flaws in reputation systems.

  I don't understand how your comments are meant to be productive.

  Alan DeKok.