as such it’s something of a “baby’s first model” (ha ha) for me. As you’d expect for something authored by a middle schooler regarding their problems, it places minimal blame on myself.
Heh, I like this sentence a lot (both for being funny, sort of adorable, and also just actually being a useful epistemic status)
This model certainly seems relevant, but should probably be properly seen as one particular lens, or a facet of a much more complicated equation. (In particular, people can have different kinds of reputation in different domains)
(In particular, people can have different kinds of reputation in different domains)
That’s true. I didn’t notice this as I was writing, but my entire post frames “reputation” as being representable as a number. I think this might have been more or less true for the situations I had in mind, all of which were non-work social groups with no particular aim.
Here’s another thought. For other types of reputations that can still be modeled as a ball on a hill, it might be useful to parameterize the slope on each side of the hill.
“Social reputation” (the vague stuff that I think I was perceiving in the situations that inspired this model) is one where the rep/+ side is pretty shallow, but the rep/- side is pretty steep. It’s not too hard to screw up and lose a good standing — in particular, if the social group gets it in their head they you were “faking it” and that you’re “not actually a good/kind/confident/funny person” — but once you’re down the well, it’s very hard to climb out.
“Academic reputation”, on the other hand, seems like it might be the reverse. I can imagine that if someone is considered a genius, and then they miss the mark on a few problems in a row, it wouldn’t do much to their standing, whereas if the local idiot suddenly pops out and solves an outstanding problem, everyone might change their minds about them. (This is based on minimal experience.)
Of course, it also depends on the group.
I’m curious — do you have any types of reputation in mind that you wouldn’t model like this, or any particular extra parts that you would add to it?
Heh, I like this sentence a lot (both for being funny, sort of adorable, and also just actually being a useful epistemic status)
This model certainly seems relevant, but should probably be properly seen as one particular lens, or a facet of a much more complicated equation. (In particular, people can have different kinds of reputation in different domains)
That’s true. I didn’t notice this as I was writing, but my entire post frames “reputation” as being representable as a number. I think this might have been more or less true for the situations I had in mind, all of which were non-work social groups with no particular aim.
Here’s another thought. For other types of reputations that can still be modeled as a ball on a hill, it might be useful to parameterize the slope on each side of the hill.
“Social reputation” (the vague stuff that I think I was perceiving in the situations that inspired this model) is one where the rep/+ side is pretty shallow, but the rep/- side is pretty steep. It’s not too hard to screw up and lose a good standing — in particular, if the social group gets it in their head they you were “faking it” and that you’re “not actually a good/kind/confident/funny person” — but once you’re down the well, it’s very hard to climb out.
“Academic reputation”, on the other hand, seems like it might be the reverse. I can imagine that if someone is considered a genius, and then they miss the mark on a few problems in a row, it wouldn’t do much to their standing, whereas if the local idiot suddenly pops out and solves an outstanding problem, everyone might change their minds about them. (This is based on minimal experience.)
Of course, it also depends on the group.
I’m curious — do you have any types of reputation in mind that you wouldn’t model like this, or any particular extra parts that you would add to it?