X-Message-Number: 26851 From: Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:56:06 EDT Subject: Re: reputation IS germane. You really aren't that ignorant, are you, Flav? In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:00:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes: "Flavinoid" wrote: Let's look at it from the other angle. Is it logically valid to give any more weight to information presented by a "known, reliable source"? Well, maybe if one is dealing in probabilities, but certainly not if one is dealing in confirming and verifying the validity of information. If assessing probability, the reputation of the speaker of the information should be given a very low weight if any at all. (Rudi Hoffman...my REAL name...responding.) What the HECK is this guy talking about?! At the risk of getting mired in a Cryonet flame war, I felt I HAD to respond to the above bit of drivel. To be fair, the rest of the posting was a bit more rational than the above snippet. There MAY be some situations where concealing your identity is vital. But they are certainly rare, and this forum ain't one of 'em, baby. "Why Reputation based systems work." We all live in an information glut. The amount of filtering of information most of do every day is ENORMOUS. To save valuable and precious time, we use SHORTCUTS. These are simple and usually reliable algorithms of the weight and importance we ascribe to various inputs we are being constantly bombarded with. You take the advice of a trusted friend over that of a stranger with a vested interest counter to your own. I am an internet stranger, calling you on a bit of irrationality that is not up to your usual standards, Flavinoid. But if your boss, or best friend, or spouse, says "Look, man, that is the worst bit of bullshit I have heard all month!" you would probably process this input differently. BASED ON THE SOURCE, YOU MORON! The SOURCE is the most IMPORTANT part of the message, for much, probably most, of our daily decisions and quality of life choices. As you are reading this, there may be a background cacophony of tv or radio noise. You are filtering this, to, hopefully, concentrate on the ASTONISHING PROFUNDITY of this idea (facetiousness intended.) It is actually rather obvious, and no doubt others will state this more succinctly than I...although perhaps with not the same verbiage. I doubt most of them will be even this nice. REPUTATION is what advertising is about. We don't have the TIME, TEMPERMENT, or TALENT, (or the desire) to road test every possible option. So we buy a brand name because this brand has a trusted REPUTATION for quality. I don't have a laboratory to assay every vitamin and nutrient I take. So I pay a premium for Life Extension Foundation nutrients which have gained my trust. Why do I drive a Lincoln Town Car, not a Chevy Vega? Because the Lincoln has a REPUTATION for being a solid, well built automobile that lasts. Why do you read some books and not others, "Flavinoid"? Is it because the REPUTATION of the author MATTERS to you? Is my opinion about an arcane question of nuclear physics as good as any PhD in Physics who has built a solid reputation for veracity over 50 years? Of course not. SOURCE MATTERS! We ALL rely on the concept of reputation every day, and most of spend huge amounts of time, energy, and money seeking to develop a good or GREAT reputation. If you think you don't, you are either lying to yourself and others. Or you don't have a reputation that is particularly desirable. You may be a great guy, but if you got a bad "rep," you may as well be a total idiot. And this obviously implies a premium on personal integrity and accountability. And using one's real name, if you want to be taken seriously, in a forum like this. While I don't always agree with Paul and Kitty, I must say the Kitty posting about the negatives of anonomous postings, votings, vettings, and activity of any sort makes TREMENDOUS sense. Because I don't want a REPUTATION for being long winded, which would encourage you to run for the scroll bar when seeing my postings, I will close now. As always, I could be wrong. But I don't think so. BTW, Flavinoid, because I don't want a REPUTATION as a name caller, or even a mean guy, I kinda apologize for any excesses in above posting. I was trying for a certain amount of readability, a trait I prize highly. For Centuries, And for Great Reputations, and Individual Accountability, Rudi Hoffman Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26851