3 ms·

Reputation is not zero-sum. Say I know 10 people and consider them to be of a certain reputation. Next, I get to know 10 more people and also consider them to b

by cjfd 3y ago

Reputation is not zero-sum. Say I know 10 people and consider them to be of a certain reputation. Next, I get to know 10 more people and also consider them to be of a certain reputation. Does this mean that in the process I have to halve the reputation of the first 10 people in order to not run out of available reputation? That is what the word zero-sum actually means.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
No, it means that your pecking order now has 20 slots on the status ladder instead of 10. The individual placings still depend on the status metrics being applied. This is zero sum because the pecking order is a linear ordering. If one person moves up someone else has to move down, and there's only room for one person at the top. Real reputations don't work as nakedly and are more fluid, but the principle still applies. No individual can simultaneously be top, middle, and bottom of the same reputation order. Everyone gets one slot, and the relative reltionships are one dimensional. Zero sum is about differentials, not about absolute rankings in some (impossible) objective sense.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  That's not usually what zero sum means though. The idea of zero-sum is that in order for one person to gain, another must lose. I don't lose respect for someone when I gain respect for another person. It's the same idea when talking about the economy. You can rank everyone by the sum of their assets, but wealth isn't a zero-sum game (long term). If it was about differentials, then there would exist no non-zero-sum anything. Also, reputation is not just a peking order. It's entirely possible for me to know 20 people and trust none of them to not steal from me. Just because 1 of them is technically my most respected, doesn't mean they are respected enough. There is an element of absolute in terms of reputation.
  - robocat 3y ago
    I suspect you are trying to be technically correct. The usage of the term "zero-sum" has a wider meaning in usage. It is commonly applied to games where there is one winner - because simplistically one person wins and everyone else loses. Games are often ranking systems and who gains and who loses is more obvious than many other situations in the wider world. > Also, reputation is not just a peking order I think it is pretty clear we know that. It is almost the point of the article! You are trying to nitpick against everyone's nebulous non-academic usage of words. Yeah, it is hard to understand what people really mean, but HN is one of the few places where it seems the norm is to try to. > wealth You have chosen a nebulous word and then straw-manned it. Wealth is adjacent to this argument - most of the points about reputation could be equally argued about wealth. Mostly when talking capitalism it is better to use the word "money" because that can be ranked (comparison between disimilar things is almost money's core feature). If a significant part of wealth depends on reputation, and if reputation is strongly ranked then wealth has a top limit. Yeah, apples and oranges, but the concept of wealth being larger or smaller contains its own self-paradox.

by cjfd 3y ago

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

No, it means that your pecking order now has 20 slots on the status ladder instead of 10. The individual placings still depend on the status metrics being applied. This is zero sum because the pecking order is a linear ordering. If one person moves up someone else has to move down, and there's only room for one person at the top. Real reputations don't work as nakedly and are more fluid, but the principle still applies. No individual can simultaneously be top, middle, and bottom of the same reputation order. Everyone gets one slot, and the relative reltionships are one dimensional. Zero sum is about differentials, not about absolute rankings in some (impossible) objective sense.

xboxnolifes 3y ago
That's not usually what zero sum means though. The idea of zero-sum is that in order for one person to gain, another must lose. I don't lose respect for someone when I gain respect for another person. It's the same idea when talking about the economy. You can rank everyone by the sum of their assets, but wealth isn't a zero-sum game (long term). If it was about differentials, then there would exist no non-zero-sum anything. Also, reputation is not just a peking order. It's entirely possible for me to know 20 people and trust none of them to not steal from me. Just because 1 of them is technically my most respected, doesn't mean they are respected enough. There is an element of absolute in terms of reputation.
- robocat 3y ago
  I suspect you are trying to be technically correct. The usage of the term "zero-sum" has a wider meaning in usage. It is commonly applied to games where there is one winner - because simplistically one person wins and everyone else loses. Games are often ranking systems and who gains and who loses is more obvious than many other situations in the wider world. > Also, reputation is not just a peking order I think it is pretty clear we know that. It is almost the point of the article! You are trying to nitpick against everyone's nebulous non-academic usage of words. Yeah, it is hard to understand what people really mean, but HN is one of the few places where it seems the norm is to try to. > wealth You have chosen a nebulous word and then straw-manned it. Wealth is adjacent to this argument - most of the points about reputation could be equally argued about wealth. Mostly when talking capitalism it is better to use the word "money" because that can be ranked (comparison between disimilar things is almost money's core feature). If a significant part of wealth depends on reputation, and if reputation is strongly ranked then wealth has a top limit. Yeah, apples and oranges, but the concept of wealth being larger or smaller contains its own self-paradox.