Thursday, March 23, 2006

2006.03.23

readings: art arguments
provocative arguments that raise questions about the issue
dont want to confuse 'what could have happened' with 'what happened'

miller:
art as an evolutionary perspective
art is a mating display, show your fitness
- resource of time invested into art
- variable (small differences in creativity -> diff quality of artwork)
- can judge between artworks
- symmetry is a form of craftmanship
conflating craftmanship (manual dexterity) with artisal (making useful, well-made things) with aesthetics (symmetry, beauty) with sexual selection (how to discern)
bower birds have larger brain size
- what are selection pressures that lead to different tastes/preferences?
natural ability + time of craft + evolved taste

conflating ART with general art
art as a profession vs. everyday craftsmanship

how to trust photographs on dating sites?
is it a 'true' photograph? just indicative? truly candid? associative?
editing process - how do you choose *which* photo that's flattering and indicative?

what ability does the person have in the creation process?
choosing a photograph, creating, editing
having a digital camera, photoshopping it to look marvelous
well-crafted profile (photo, writing, etc)

cost of profile writing
- effort to write it
- a direction / focus / opinion-making / intent
checkboxes, questionnaire

interests: threshold? if you have 2 things? 200 things? what does it say about person?

indian dating sites
astrology
'mars in lunar houses'
if you marry someone in the same sign, the aggression is off-set

checkboxes - fit in cultural boundaries
compartmental
more and more specific markets (dating site for a narrow community)
users of the site define the culture + definition of the site design

do you buy into the psychology?
take a questionnaire and follow the matchmaking algorithm
believe that it has a bit of truth

what is a reliable set of signals? and a telling set of signals?
(data) nonsmokers only correspond with nonsmokers, etc
signaling something too generic

not enough effort vs. too much effort (too much investment, too clever)
want to fit the community culture
there's a set of norms that are established

dan ariely research
'are you appropriate for me?' - how do you self-select?
how do you sort through - how do you fit in social space - who do you approach?

how can you avoid certain attractive people getting bombarded with requests?
- cost of rejection is higher?
- public correspondence

consider cost for messaging
- money (fee)
- fixed quota (only # per time period)
can you

rejection costs are low because you dont expect a need to reply

psychology of attraction
algorithm - astrology, chemical, match metrics

is someone approachable?
anything invisible is not a community standard
hard to know if email-responding a community standard if it's private
what if it's public?

rejection - feedback by clicking on the unattractive parts
the 'reason' for rejecting
specify whats wrong - help people adapt?
public vs private critique
identified vs anonymous feedback
encourage to get responses (curiousity on the other end)

part of your profile is your responses to other people (your tone?)

feedback to help you fit into the 'norm'

deal with competition - how to glean information from competitors?
people are supposed to be exclusive - dont want to share

common ground, common participation for people's profiles
come out in how people interact with each other
how generous is this person as a person? are they really funny?
what are costs / benefits?
cost - showing interaction

what types of deception happen on these spaces?
- relationship status
- distance between ideal self and real self
how to elucidate truth on the profile?

before you meet online
build your image of yourself and of the other person
fall in love with the mental representation
meet in person, and then they perhaps dont match up to expectations

black box algorithm - gives you an extra bit of information
if you think it's not important you can ignore it

deception in dating sites
true.com threatens to prosecute deceptors

within the match.com type sites, not much development except different questions to pose to people to answer in their profiles
all similar style


dont want to turn cues into signals
measuring sensing vs. intentional communication

giftgiving waste / loss is a signaling cost
making a risk on finding something that will match the other person

thinking of wishlists, public request lists
costly way of telling someone about your investment in them
boundaries of gifts (services, bribery)

have a good spring break!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home