From: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:41:31 +0800
To: "James A. Donald" <wjhalv1@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Re: towards a theory of reputation
In-Reply-To: <199511220523.VAA28300@blob.best.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951121234629.2539B-100000@eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, James A. Donald wrote:

> Any attempt to discuss and analyze reputations using
> morally neutral language is bound to wind up as boring long
> winded meaningless complicated word salad.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  Can you give an example to how 
to discuss reputation (i.e., the concept of reputation, not a particular 
reputation) using morally non-neutral language?

William J. Halverson wrote:

> What is the differnece between 'reputation' and 'value'?

When we say the value of some object, we implicitely assume that the 
quality of the information we used to evaluate the object is good enough 
that we don't have to deal with uncertainty.  When we speak of reputation 
however, we explicitely assume that we have less than perfect information 
and that uncertainties must be dealt with.  We normally speak of value of 
objects and reputation of entities, because information about objects are 
usually easier to obtain than information about entities.

> Why quantify it?  If Bob's advertising/testimonials are successful,
> he may not even have a 'reputation' because only insiders know
> about him.

Quantification is an abstraction that sometimes allows one to think about 
a concept more clearly.  You decide whether this is the case for 
reputation.

I don't completely understand your second sentence.  Only people who know 
that Bob exists has a reputation of him, so if only insiders know he 
exists, his reputation consists of the insiders' reputations of him.

Wei Dai