Everyday Peeple

Forget Parcheesi. Bayesian games are proper fun for the whole family. In a Bayesian game, one (or both) players doesn't know what type of person the other is. This is important because play will vary depending on the nature of your opponent. If you face the decision about whether or not to be the tough guy in a barroom confrontation, it's in your best interest to know whether or not the other dude can mop the floor with you. By reverse induction, it's therefore wise in such situations to signal to others that you're tough, or crazy or dangerous. This is true whether or not you're actually a badass. Acting tough in a barroom brawl game is therefore a pooling equilibrium. Contrast this with, say, the automobile market. A '31 Duesenberg Phaeton gets a motorist from Point A to Point B roughly as effectively as an '86 Yugo (provided you can find one still in working condition), yet for the price of one Doozy ($1.4M at auction), you can buy close to 1500 Zastava Korals (again, provided that many exist in the wild. A Dusenberg isn't 1500 times as efficient at transporting humans, so the price reflects something else about the owner. This is a separating equilibrium.

For most existing Bayesian-type games, we have pretty well-established heuristics about what to expect and how to play. We know when to be sincere (the marriage game) and when to be strategically dishonest (the dating game). But that's for well-established, properly-understood situations.

Meet Peeple, aka Yelp, but for humans. Yes, yes: the idea was stolen from either Dinosaur Comics or SMBC, depending on whether you ask Ryan or Zach (I do so hope they duke it out in the comments [they won't]). So far, most of the press has been pretty unkind. It's easy enough to imagine anonymous vandals ruining moderate-to-high profile people's reputations with relative ease and impunity. If this happens, the sensible response from folks with chronically bad ratings is to poison the well, so to speak. That is, if a separating equilibrium arises, where actually awful people tend to accumulate negative reviews, then those awful people will have an incentive to sock-puppet up and leave piles of negative reviews on the profiles of their rivals, thereby creating a pooling equilibrium where everyone looks awful. Sort of like Encyclopedia Dramatica, but with less fun and imagination.

Still, I think it'd be a nice experiment to see what sort of Bayesian game arises. Recall that some Bayesian games have no pure dominant equilibrium strategy. If I were a betting man, I'd say that there would be some chaos (pooling eq) among second-tier culture warriors, but most other folks would enjoy more-or-less accurate ratings. If I were a betting man.

Edit: the above assumes that the proposed venture isn't merely a silly hoax (pr ~.6)

 

I Retract My Apology

Hello occupational licensing, my old friend. From Reason TV, via the Girl Poet:

I won't rehash arguments about how licensing has morphed from a consumer protection initiative into the institutionalized banditry you see above. That road is well-trod. Instead, I want to draw your attention to the point the video makes about CA state officials posting video on YouTube.

You can imagine the steam rising from HL Mencken's ears, can't you?

Put on your libertarian shoes for a moment and think about this. Step 1) Otherwise honest people want to make a (as far as I can tell) purely euvoluntary deal about landscaping or housepainting or something. Step 2) State enforcement agents step in and turn these people into criminals. Step 3) These same state officials, under the belief that they act in the public interest, share with the public footage of their activity. Step 5) From the public, crickets. There is no step four.

You don't have to be a staunch Nozickian to find this appalling. Indeed, I suspect you'd have to be well-blinkered to fail to characterize this as anything but above-board thuggery. And they're proud of it. I... I don't even have the words, people. Didn't the radical left of the 60's rail against The Man? This is The Man, on full display, grinningly showcasing its TheMannery for the wide world to see.

I'm not even sure whom to be ashamed of.

Okay, with this story, I now have to grudgingly admit that the looking-glass threshold has been well and crossed. The snout of the state has well and truly snuffled into the trough of euvoluntary exchange and there it browses, proudly showcasing its bedswerving flanks. I was wrong to apologize. Things really are as crazy as they seem.

Here are highlights from the original video:

You Gonna Eat That?

I assume this is a goof, but if the remarks from the SF Health Department are legitimate, it's a goof that has officials flustered.

It's an app that allows strangers to finish your lunch for when you can't cram the whole thing down your facehole yourself. My initial thought (beyond "this is a silly joke") is "f-ing nasty, man", but you know, different strokes and all. If someone wants to risk, I don't know, mononucleosis or something for a lukewarm, sloppy Reuben, that's their business. Caveat comedor.

What do you think? Public health hazard? Price discrimination? Recycling? What's the right analytical approach? Is LeftoverSwap euvoluntary?

Sad. But Illegal?

In a pathetic way, this woman is trying to take responsibility for her child (though, since she's pregnant again, it's hard to predict a good outcome).

"Stephanie Redus, 29, told authorities that she placed the ad [on Craigslist] because she struggles with depression and anxiety, CBS Houston reports. She is currently pregnant. The ad stated:

'Hi, I'm trying to adopt out my three-year-old son. I'm not in a good place in my life and don't feel like I can care for him properly, but I don't know where to start. If you or know anyone who is interested in caring for him please let me know. I'm a single mom and can't do this. Thanks, Desperate.'

...Redus is charged with advertising for placement of a child."

ATSRTWT

 So, the lady is NOT trying to sell her son, she is trying to "adopt out" the lad.  Doing it on Craig's List is a bad idea, since the state has asserted a monopoly on controlling adoption.  But is that right?  Should a parent be able to make arrangements to take of her own child? 

Note that if she were advertising for day care, or extended care, and SHE could pay, it would be fine.  The mom can advertise for an arrangement to take care of her child if she is rich.

And it would be clearly wrong if she were trying to sell the child, asking for money in exchange for "title" in the form of adoption.

The middle case, this one, is the interesting one.  Can she give the child away?  And, if so, can she use social media to try to find a good match?

Nod to Kevin Lewis