Another way to separate these two concepts is whether you’re trying to hold yourself to an internal or external standard. This is captured by this Lois McMaster Bujold quote (though she uses “reputation” where you might use “PR”):
Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself. Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will.
To me, internal vs. external seems like the more crucial distinction than “fixed standard” (reputation) vs. “modelled reactions” (PR) that you describe in the post.
Heh, I wrote a very long comment and then ended it with “it would be nice if we could be Aral Vorkosigan”. It’s certainly a good concept, but my objection here is that, unlike the speaker of that quote, we do not:
control an army and navy, which can be used either directly to suppress the consequences of a very bad reputation or indirectly to merely suggest that we could and you therefore ought to be reluctant to act on your low opinion unless you have a very good reason
have a substantial family fortune to fall back on if we are unable or unwilling to use that bludgeon and can no longer rely on ever receiving resources from anyone else
have close bonds of personal/filial loyalty with everyone of any importance in the government, such that even if society judged your reputation sufficiently unforgivable, the chances of having our resources forcibly taken away are nil
In short, it’s not something that works unless no one has power over you. Everyone has someone who has power over them.
Another way to separate these two concepts is whether you’re trying to hold yourself to an internal or external standard. This is captured by this Lois McMaster Bujold quote (though she uses “reputation” where you might use “PR”):
To me, internal vs. external seems like the more crucial distinction than “fixed standard” (reputation) vs. “modelled reactions” (PR) that you describe in the post.
Heh, I wrote a very long comment and then ended it with “it would be nice if we could be Aral Vorkosigan”. It’s certainly a good concept, but my objection here is that, unlike the speaker of that quote, we do not:
control an army and navy, which can be used either directly to suppress the consequences of a very bad reputation or indirectly to merely suggest that we could and you therefore ought to be reluctant to act on your low opinion unless you have a very good reason
have a substantial family fortune to fall back on if we are unable or unwilling to use that bludgeon and can no longer rely on ever receiving resources from anyone else
have close bonds of personal/filial loyalty with everyone of any importance in the government, such that even if society judged your reputation sufficiently unforgivable, the chances of having our resources forcibly taken away are nil
In short, it’s not something that works unless no one has power over you. Everyone has someone who has power over them.