[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: towards a theory of reputation
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
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.