What do you think?
Rate this book
Reputation - What It Is and Why It Matters
A compelling exploration of how reputation affects every aspect of contemporary life
Reputation touches almost everything, guiding our behavior and choices in countless ways. But it is also shrouded in mystery. Why is it so powerful when the criteria by which people and things are defined as good or bad often appear to be arbitrary? Why do we care so much about how others see us that we may even do irrational and harmful things to try to influence their opinion? In this engaging book, Gloria Origgi draws on philosophy, social psychology, sociology, economics, literature, and history to offer an illuminating account of an important yet oddly neglected subject.
Origgi examines the influence of the Internet and social media, as well as the countless ranking systems that characterize modern society and contribute to the creation of formal and informal reputations in our social relations, in business, in politics, in academia, and even in wine. She highlights the importance of reputation to the effective functioning of the economy and e-commerce. Origgi also discusses the existential significance of our obsession with reputation, concluding that an awareness of the relationship between our reputation and our actions empowers us to better understand who we are and why we do what we do.
Compellingly written and filled with surprising insights, Reputation pins down an elusive subject that affects everyone.
Reputation touches almost everything, guiding our behavior and choices in countless ways. But it is also shrouded in mystery. Why is it so powerful when the criteria by which people and things are defined as good or bad often appear to be arbitrary? Why do we care so much about how others see us that we may even do irrational and harmful things to try to influence their opinion? In this engaging book, Gloria Origgi draws on philosophy, social psychology, sociology, economics, literature, and history to offer an illuminating account of an important yet oddly neglected subject.
Origgi examines the influence of the Internet and social media, as well as the countless ranking systems that characterize modern society and contribute to the creation of formal and informal reputations in our social relations, in business, in politics, in academia, and even in wine. She highlights the importance of reputation to the effective functioning of the economy and e-commerce. Origgi also discusses the existential significance of our obsession with reputation, concluding that an awareness of the relationship between our reputation and our actions empowers us to better understand who we are and why we do what we do.
Compellingly written and filled with surprising insights, Reputation pins down an elusive subject that affects everyone.
Audio CD
Published January 1, 2018
29 people are currently reading
345 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 20, 2018
Uma ideia legal, sobre como construímos reputação, estendida mais do que o recheio justifica. Origgi discute uma série de formas de reputação, como rankings são construídos e afins. Mas fiquei com uma impressão muito forte de que foi uma discussão em torno de rankings acadêmicos e comparação de publicações que ela esticou e generalizou para mais assuntos. Não me contribuíram muito.
December 22, 2017
The mask makes the man
It seems that if you study reputation long enough, you come to the conclusion that it does not exist. Reputation is all in your head. It is what you believe others think of you because of how you present yourself and possibly what you (claim to) have done in the past. On this tissue of subterfuge rests reputation. The Latin word “persona“ means mask.
Gloria Origgi has done a fine job of thinking this through, from most conceivable angles. Not only does she account for gossip and rumor, but the human condition and the need for esteem if not immortality. She examines wine raters, academic publishing and ebay feedback as well as charlatans and frauds (though oddly, she doesn’t examine Linked In, the ultimate dedicated reputation site).
Ironically, despite all her citations of studies and references to other scientists’ work, Origgi fills her book with examples from fiction. From films to books to plays and operas, almost all of her points are illustrated through imaginary people doing imaginary things that harm or enhance their imaginary reputations.
Reputation reminds me of homo economicus, a theoretical construct of a rational being, always making the right decision. He does not exist, but there is a huge body of work that requires and depends on him. So with Reputation, a theoretical construct drawing on angles and aspects of society, with very little recourse to the way the world works. I half expected a mathematical formula to appear. In the real world, everyone is trying to get ahead. They will say and do whatever it takes, rightly or wrongly, morally or immorally. For some, even a terrible reputation is preferable to none (which Origgi does not contemplate).
Possibly the most rational conclusion Origgi comes to is that reputation is a necessary feedback loop. Like musicians onstage, we need to hear and see what others are hearing and seeing to know how we’re doing and adjust for greater acceptance.
As Origgi says early on, there is very little in the way of deep research on reputation. It is an emerging topic that needs argument. This will be the baseline.
David Wineberg
It seems that if you study reputation long enough, you come to the conclusion that it does not exist. Reputation is all in your head. It is what you believe others think of you because of how you present yourself and possibly what you (claim to) have done in the past. On this tissue of subterfuge rests reputation. The Latin word “persona“ means mask.
Gloria Origgi has done a fine job of thinking this through, from most conceivable angles. Not only does she account for gossip and rumor, but the human condition and the need for esteem if not immortality. She examines wine raters, academic publishing and ebay feedback as well as charlatans and frauds (though oddly, she doesn’t examine Linked In, the ultimate dedicated reputation site).
Ironically, despite all her citations of studies and references to other scientists’ work, Origgi fills her book with examples from fiction. From films to books to plays and operas, almost all of her points are illustrated through imaginary people doing imaginary things that harm or enhance their imaginary reputations.
Reputation reminds me of homo economicus, a theoretical construct of a rational being, always making the right decision. He does not exist, but there is a huge body of work that requires and depends on him. So with Reputation, a theoretical construct drawing on angles and aspects of society, with very little recourse to the way the world works. I half expected a mathematical formula to appear. In the real world, everyone is trying to get ahead. They will say and do whatever it takes, rightly or wrongly, morally or immorally. For some, even a terrible reputation is preferable to none (which Origgi does not contemplate).
Possibly the most rational conclusion Origgi comes to is that reputation is a necessary feedback loop. Like musicians onstage, we need to hear and see what others are hearing and seeing to know how we’re doing and adjust for greater acceptance.
As Origgi says early on, there is very little in the way of deep research on reputation. It is an emerging topic that needs argument. This will be the baseline.
David Wineberg
March 31, 2018
Beautifully written; gently prods the heart of human drama
January 1, 2019
Reputation, according to one definition in Gloria Origgi’s interesting and insightful book on the subject, is a ‘shadowy reflection of ourselves that exists solely in the minds of others’. Our image is ‘warped, amplified, redacted and multiplied in the eyes of others’.
Our own reputations are influenced by the reputations of others. Information about us from reputable sources influences our own reputation the most. People draw conclusions about the people we associate with, or who choose to associate with us (if they have higher status on some relevant dimension). Stereotypes about our broad social group matter too. Origgi’s book has many examples of how these reputational tools work, and how they can fail.
Although we should exercise ‘epistemic responsibility’ in what we believe, the information we provide and the signals we give, reputation is an unavoidable and often useful cognitive tool. Much of what it is important to know about other people is hard to observe directly or quickly. We need the insights of others.
In a good way, Reputation: what it is and why it matters reads like a book from an earlier era, before academic specialisation. Its author is a philosopher, but she does not limit herself to her own field. The book takes ideas, observations and examples from many disciplines, writers, centuries and countries. There is some academic terminology, but overall it is very readable.
Our own reputations are influenced by the reputations of others. Information about us from reputable sources influences our own reputation the most. People draw conclusions about the people we associate with, or who choose to associate with us (if they have higher status on some relevant dimension). Stereotypes about our broad social group matter too. Origgi’s book has many examples of how these reputational tools work, and how they can fail.
Although we should exercise ‘epistemic responsibility’ in what we believe, the information we provide and the signals we give, reputation is an unavoidable and often useful cognitive tool. Much of what it is important to know about other people is hard to observe directly or quickly. We need the insights of others.
In a good way, Reputation: what it is and why it matters reads like a book from an earlier era, before academic specialisation. Its author is a philosopher, but she does not limit herself to her own field. The book takes ideas, observations and examples from many disciplines, writers, centuries and countries. There is some academic terminology, but overall it is very readable.
August 15, 2020
Achei o livro bem interessante por nunca ter me dedicado a refletir de forma consciente a respeito do tema tratado.
Ao terminara leitura, acabei sendo instigado a refletir sobre como temas atuais como as práticas de "cancelamento", cada vez mais comuns, seriam analisadas pelos autores.
Seria uma disputa no mercado da reputação, no mercado epistêmico, en ambos ou ainda poderia ter outra interpretação? Talvez uma versão futura atualizada ataque esses pontos! 🤔
Ao terminara leitura, acabei sendo instigado a refletir sobre como temas atuais como as práticas de "cancelamento", cada vez mais comuns, seriam analisadas pelos autores.
Seria uma disputa no mercado da reputação, no mercado epistêmico, en ambos ou ainda poderia ter outra interpretação? Talvez uma versão futura atualizada ataque esses pontos! 🤔
September 8, 2020
An interesting work on how “reputation” serves as a critical quantity that can explain human behavior in lieu (or possibly complementing) of alternative explanatory formalism like the rational expectations/choice. As the author states in the beginning of the text, it is not a “complete'' treatise or theory on reputation, but it offers a great entry-point for those who may want to study this phenomena further, and possibly contribute to the topic. Though the author labels her approach as primarily philosophic in nature, one can easily fill in the details here and outline a mathematically precise translation of much of the author’s predicates without much strain (assuming they are comfortable with the notation). Further, the author makes great use of existing economic sociology and psychology-derived ideas, especially in social network theory, and the related theory of social capital, which informs much of our current understanding of “reputation” cascading in a sociological group.
Over half of the material however, is not focused on these abstractions, but more importantly focused on applying those ideas to real life reputation-networks as use-cases of study. Specifically, academic networks, networks of specialists, the web (or as she refers to it, the “collective intelligence”), as well as an interesting study of wine connoisseurs. In each use-case there is a study of how reputation inform propagation and stabilization of the network, in the case of the most important case outlined in the text, the academic/citations research network, the author makes some interesting analogies of how the network is more equivalent to a market-place and does not actually serve to do what it is supposed to do, that is serve as a channel of information exchange with other researchers. The author believes that informal exchanges of research is much more efficient, and sociological studies of academics shows these informal correspondence is actually how much collaboration/queries for research are actually exchanged as opposed to directly querying the journals.
Many different readers may find this book useful. In the practical sense, it could serve as a preliminary reading for those who work in Web 2.0 companies or social media firms that operate multi-sided platforms say, where reputation in the guise of star-ratings and/or binary thumbs up/down assignments can serve as signal for provider/customer value, and the management of this “quantity” could prove a critical ingredient above/beyond the usual platform management tricks towards a healthy and thriving platform and the enterprise that supports it. Further, I can see that not only academic sociologists, but even economists, especially those who follow the network economics vein of study, would find this text as an important read to gain background on what has been done prior. Obviously philosophers would be interested in this work, as it is primarily hailed as output within their discipline. Though, I’m not sure which sub-discipline in that field this text would neatly fit in (but this is because I am unfamiliar with philosophy).
Great read, enjoyed it. It validates many things I’ve read and thought elsewhere, and added more definition to the approach of reputation-analysis. A good aside to read is probably Matthew Jackson’s layman book “Human Network” or his textbook “Social Network”. I feel these two book are closely aligned, especially if one wants to go deeper into studying the network structure of reputation-networks, which although defined broadly here, is not really well outlined mathematically (Jackson will give you much of what you need in this department). Highly recommended.
Over half of the material however, is not focused on these abstractions, but more importantly focused on applying those ideas to real life reputation-networks as use-cases of study. Specifically, academic networks, networks of specialists, the web (or as she refers to it, the “collective intelligence”), as well as an interesting study of wine connoisseurs. In each use-case there is a study of how reputation inform propagation and stabilization of the network, in the case of the most important case outlined in the text, the academic/citations research network, the author makes some interesting analogies of how the network is more equivalent to a market-place and does not actually serve to do what it is supposed to do, that is serve as a channel of information exchange with other researchers. The author believes that informal exchanges of research is much more efficient, and sociological studies of academics shows these informal correspondence is actually how much collaboration/queries for research are actually exchanged as opposed to directly querying the journals.
Many different readers may find this book useful. In the practical sense, it could serve as a preliminary reading for those who work in Web 2.0 companies or social media firms that operate multi-sided platforms say, where reputation in the guise of star-ratings and/or binary thumbs up/down assignments can serve as signal for provider/customer value, and the management of this “quantity” could prove a critical ingredient above/beyond the usual platform management tricks towards a healthy and thriving platform and the enterprise that supports it. Further, I can see that not only academic sociologists, but even economists, especially those who follow the network economics vein of study, would find this text as an important read to gain background on what has been done prior. Obviously philosophers would be interested in this work, as it is primarily hailed as output within their discipline. Though, I’m not sure which sub-discipline in that field this text would neatly fit in (but this is because I am unfamiliar with philosophy).
Great read, enjoyed it. It validates many things I’ve read and thought elsewhere, and added more definition to the approach of reputation-analysis. A good aside to read is probably Matthew Jackson’s layman book “Human Network” or his textbook “Social Network”. I feel these two book are closely aligned, especially if one wants to go deeper into studying the network structure of reputation-networks, which although defined broadly here, is not really well outlined mathematically (Jackson will give you much of what you need in this department). Highly recommended.
August 31, 2018
"Ti hanno detto che il mondo è tondo e tu ci credi". Era una frase che mio padre, nato agli inizi del novecento, era solito ripetere spesso. Lui era un tipografo, uno "stampatore", come lo chiamavano in paese. Come lo era stato suo padre e gli altri suoi fratelli. Lui, le notizie le "creava", mettendo insieme le lettere sul compositore, riga dopo riga. In tipografia davano vita a quella che chiamavano la "forma", ci passavano sopra con un cilindro di caucciù l'inchiostro e il tutto veniva impresso sul foglio che dava vita alla "pagina". La "notizia" era pronta, così come era stata ordinata da chi l'aveva scritta, per essere servita a chi la voleva/doveva leggere. Lui non si curava tanto di chi gli diceva cosa stampare, nè tanto meno si chiedeva il perchè. Insomma non ne faceva una storia di "reputazione", come è il caso dell'autrice di questo importante libro da poco uscito sia in edizione italiana che in inglese.
Si tratta di dare un significato al senso della comunicazione contemporanea in tutte le diverse facce che la stessa assume a seconda del mezzo che viene usato per trasmetterla. I sinonimi ci aiutano a mettere a fuoco la dimensione semantica di questa parola. Sono molti e importanti da conoscere perchè, anche se ci mettono al sicuro dalle "fake news", ci espongono anche a quelle sono chiamate "fufale".
Un termine che segnala la sua forza comunicativa sia da un punto di vista personale che sociale. Anche per questo libro, che parla proprio di reputazione, vale il fatto che questa parola sta per considerazione, credito, fama, gloria, onorabilità, opinione, popolarità, nome, celebrità, decoro, etichetta, marchio, nomea, fiducia, stima, vaglia, buon nome, concetto, affermazione, prestigio ...
Siamo sicuri che chi ha scritto questo libro possiede la necessaria "reputazione" per dire quello che dice? Siamo sicuri che ogni qualvolta ascoltiamo, leggiamo, discutiamo una notizia abbiamo opportunamente controllato quello che diciamo? Su cosa poggia quello che questo blogger scrive cercando di capire quello che pensa? Possono sembrare domande oziose o filosofiche, ma qui siamo arrivati al punto che non soddisfa più l'ormai classico e tradizionale "Cogito ergo sum".
Con il solo fatto di pensare, mi viene il dubbio che non posseggo la necessaria "reputazione" di cui mi sto occupando. E' un paradosso poco apprezzato della conoscenza moderna in questa nostra epoca nella quale siamo tutti sempre più connessi. Più informazioni abbiamo a disposizione, maggiore è il nostro bisogno di sapere quanta "reputazione" hanno i mezzi ai quali ci affidiamo per raccogliere le informazioni.
Il paradosso è, appunto, ciò che ci crea questa grande mole di notizie a nostra disposizione. Non aumenta, anzi mette in pericolo le nostre conoscenze. Siamo, infatti, sempre più dipendenti da chi ci fornisce queste informazioni. Possiamo, allora, smettere di parlare di "età dell'informazione" e passare a quella della "reputazione".
Un'informazione corretta, affidabile e puntuale dovrà essere filtrata, valutata e commentata da chi ne possiede le dovute competenze. Il pilastro fondamentale della intelligenza moderna è questa affidabilità che crea la "reputazione" in una duplice direzione: reputazione per chi la distribuisce e per chi la riceve e ne deve/vuole fare uso.
Si possono dare alcuni esempi storici di questo paradosso i quali poi, nel tempo, si sono succeduti con l'accelerazione della tecnologia comunicativa, dando vita alle "bufale" o "fake news" che dir si voglia. Il "falso" è diventato, così, sempre più attraente del "vero". Diventa simile al "vero" per combattere il messaggio che porta con sè, con il risultato che il "vero" diventa "falso".
Facciamo alcuni esempi di questo paradosso. Se dobbiamo credere ai grandi cambiamenti del clima e su quello che, a causa di questi, sarà il futuro del nostro pianeta, dovremo prendere nella giusta misura la "reputazione" delle fonti alle quali ci rivolgiamo per saperlo.
Giornali, riviste, siti ed istituzioni formeranno lo scenario informativo al quale ci rivolgeremo. Il che significa che diamo a questi la dovuta "reputazione" per la conoscenza dei fatti. Non possiamo fare altro e di meglio.
Un altro esempio può essere quello basato sulla incontrovertibile verità che sono stati gli atterraggi lunari effettuati dal programma Apollo dal 1969 al 1972. C'è stato qualcuno che ha innescato una "miccia", per così dire, che ha fatto poi diffondere a livello planetario, la "bufala". L'autore indiscusso è stato Kill Kaysing il quale pubblicò nel 1976 un libro intitolato "We never went to the Moon: America's $30 Billion Swindle". ("Non siamo mai andati sulla Luna: la truffa americana di 30 milioni di dollari").
Mai come in questo caso sono valide le canoniche domande che scaturiscono da "chi-cosa-quando-dove-perchè" per rispondere alla fatidica ultima domanda "perchè?". Si scopre così che Kill (un nome che è tutto un programma!) aveva lavorato in una delle società partecipanti al progetto lunare. Un ottimo punto di partenza per scoprire come andarono effettivamente le cose. Eppure, da quel libro nacquero innumerevoli movimenti di scettici lunari.
Medesima cosa accadde con l'11 settembre 2011 per l'attacco alle Torri Gemelle di New York. Inutile dare qui spiegazioni e risposte alle domande canoniche. Eppure, sorge spontaneo l'interrogativo che ognuno può chiedersi quante e quali sono le prove che uno come me e come voi può avere personalmente per fatti così eclatanti. Sono sempre prove relative dipendenti da altri i quali poggiano su altri e poi altri ancora. Ma, allora, il problema non riguarda più la grande massa di informazioni, quanto la loro "reputazione".
Si parla di "misinformazione" o "disinformazione" che poi diventano "bufale" o "fake news". Quello che si chiede a noi cittadini multimediali e digitali non è più tanto e solo il controllo di quello che sentiamo o leggiamo, quanto la capacità di ricostruire, attraverso il predetto canone, la "reputazione" della notizia in termini di credibilià accertata. Si tratta di saper leggere la realtà che ci circonda e ci coinvolge in ogni momento in questa società quanto mai più "liquida".
Come didtricarsi in un sistema esistenziale che oltre ad avere una sua vivibilità di superficie, ma non superficiale, comporta anche una precisa e profonda necessità di saper vivere in "profondità" sia interiore che esteriore. Ad esempio: saper comprendere la possibile correlazione che esiste tra i vaccini e il problema dell'autismo sarebbe una missione impossibile per chi non possiede gli strumenti necessari per conoscerne il nesso.
In questa epoca di "reputazione" non conta tanto e solo la conoscenza dei contenuti, quanto quelle che sono le correlazioni sociali con le quali ci si deve sapere collegare e che formano un corretto uso della conoscenza. Una "epistemologia" di secondo ordine, intesa studio critico della natura e dei limiti della conoscenza scientifica. Per influsso del corrispondente termine inglese, il vocabolo viene sempre più usato per designare la teoria generale della conoscenza, quindi, gnoseologia.
Saper porre e porsi domande per acquisire conoscenza partendo dal principio che gli uomini costruiscono la loro civiltà beneficiando di conoscenze che non posseggono. Stiamo creando un "cybermondo", un mondo in cui tutto ruota intorno all'informatica. Molti pensano sia Internet, la Rete, il Web, chiamatelo come volete. Invece va ben oltre. Una realtà esistenziale nella quale ognuno di noi dovrebbe sapere essere ed avere una identità sia individuale che sociale. Sono sicuro che se potesse ritornare mio Padre continuerebbe a dire: "Ti hanno detto che il mondo è tondo e tu ci credi". Io gli rsponderei: "Eppur si muove!".
Si tratta di dare un significato al senso della comunicazione contemporanea in tutte le diverse facce che la stessa assume a seconda del mezzo che viene usato per trasmetterla. I sinonimi ci aiutano a mettere a fuoco la dimensione semantica di questa parola. Sono molti e importanti da conoscere perchè, anche se ci mettono al sicuro dalle "fake news", ci espongono anche a quelle sono chiamate "fufale".
Un termine che segnala la sua forza comunicativa sia da un punto di vista personale che sociale. Anche per questo libro, che parla proprio di reputazione, vale il fatto che questa parola sta per considerazione, credito, fama, gloria, onorabilità, opinione, popolarità, nome, celebrità, decoro, etichetta, marchio, nomea, fiducia, stima, vaglia, buon nome, concetto, affermazione, prestigio ...
Siamo sicuri che chi ha scritto questo libro possiede la necessaria "reputazione" per dire quello che dice? Siamo sicuri che ogni qualvolta ascoltiamo, leggiamo, discutiamo una notizia abbiamo opportunamente controllato quello che diciamo? Su cosa poggia quello che questo blogger scrive cercando di capire quello che pensa? Possono sembrare domande oziose o filosofiche, ma qui siamo arrivati al punto che non soddisfa più l'ormai classico e tradizionale "Cogito ergo sum".
Con il solo fatto di pensare, mi viene il dubbio che non posseggo la necessaria "reputazione" di cui mi sto occupando. E' un paradosso poco apprezzato della conoscenza moderna in questa nostra epoca nella quale siamo tutti sempre più connessi. Più informazioni abbiamo a disposizione, maggiore è il nostro bisogno di sapere quanta "reputazione" hanno i mezzi ai quali ci affidiamo per raccogliere le informazioni.
Il paradosso è, appunto, ciò che ci crea questa grande mole di notizie a nostra disposizione. Non aumenta, anzi mette in pericolo le nostre conoscenze. Siamo, infatti, sempre più dipendenti da chi ci fornisce queste informazioni. Possiamo, allora, smettere di parlare di "età dell'informazione" e passare a quella della "reputazione".
Un'informazione corretta, affidabile e puntuale dovrà essere filtrata, valutata e commentata da chi ne possiede le dovute competenze. Il pilastro fondamentale della intelligenza moderna è questa affidabilità che crea la "reputazione" in una duplice direzione: reputazione per chi la distribuisce e per chi la riceve e ne deve/vuole fare uso.
Si possono dare alcuni esempi storici di questo paradosso i quali poi, nel tempo, si sono succeduti con l'accelerazione della tecnologia comunicativa, dando vita alle "bufale" o "fake news" che dir si voglia. Il "falso" è diventato, così, sempre più attraente del "vero". Diventa simile al "vero" per combattere il messaggio che porta con sè, con il risultato che il "vero" diventa "falso".
Facciamo alcuni esempi di questo paradosso. Se dobbiamo credere ai grandi cambiamenti del clima e su quello che, a causa di questi, sarà il futuro del nostro pianeta, dovremo prendere nella giusta misura la "reputazione" delle fonti alle quali ci rivolgiamo per saperlo.
Giornali, riviste, siti ed istituzioni formeranno lo scenario informativo al quale ci rivolgeremo. Il che significa che diamo a questi la dovuta "reputazione" per la conoscenza dei fatti. Non possiamo fare altro e di meglio.
Un altro esempio può essere quello basato sulla incontrovertibile verità che sono stati gli atterraggi lunari effettuati dal programma Apollo dal 1969 al 1972. C'è stato qualcuno che ha innescato una "miccia", per così dire, che ha fatto poi diffondere a livello planetario, la "bufala". L'autore indiscusso è stato Kill Kaysing il quale pubblicò nel 1976 un libro intitolato "We never went to the Moon: America's $30 Billion Swindle". ("Non siamo mai andati sulla Luna: la truffa americana di 30 milioni di dollari").
Mai come in questo caso sono valide le canoniche domande che scaturiscono da "chi-cosa-quando-dove-perchè" per rispondere alla fatidica ultima domanda "perchè?". Si scopre così che Kill (un nome che è tutto un programma!) aveva lavorato in una delle società partecipanti al progetto lunare. Un ottimo punto di partenza per scoprire come andarono effettivamente le cose. Eppure, da quel libro nacquero innumerevoli movimenti di scettici lunari.
Medesima cosa accadde con l'11 settembre 2011 per l'attacco alle Torri Gemelle di New York. Inutile dare qui spiegazioni e risposte alle domande canoniche. Eppure, sorge spontaneo l'interrogativo che ognuno può chiedersi quante e quali sono le prove che uno come me e come voi può avere personalmente per fatti così eclatanti. Sono sempre prove relative dipendenti da altri i quali poggiano su altri e poi altri ancora. Ma, allora, il problema non riguarda più la grande massa di informazioni, quanto la loro "reputazione".
Si parla di "misinformazione" o "disinformazione" che poi diventano "bufale" o "fake news". Quello che si chiede a noi cittadini multimediali e digitali non è più tanto e solo il controllo di quello che sentiamo o leggiamo, quanto la capacità di ricostruire, attraverso il predetto canone, la "reputazione" della notizia in termini di credibilià accertata. Si tratta di saper leggere la realtà che ci circonda e ci coinvolge in ogni momento in questa società quanto mai più "liquida".
Come didtricarsi in un sistema esistenziale che oltre ad avere una sua vivibilità di superficie, ma non superficiale, comporta anche una precisa e profonda necessità di saper vivere in "profondità" sia interiore che esteriore. Ad esempio: saper comprendere la possibile correlazione che esiste tra i vaccini e il problema dell'autismo sarebbe una missione impossibile per chi non possiede gli strumenti necessari per conoscerne il nesso.
In questa epoca di "reputazione" non conta tanto e solo la conoscenza dei contenuti, quanto quelle che sono le correlazioni sociali con le quali ci si deve sapere collegare e che formano un corretto uso della conoscenza. Una "epistemologia" di secondo ordine, intesa studio critico della natura e dei limiti della conoscenza scientifica. Per influsso del corrispondente termine inglese, il vocabolo viene sempre più usato per designare la teoria generale della conoscenza, quindi, gnoseologia.
Saper porre e porsi domande per acquisire conoscenza partendo dal principio che gli uomini costruiscono la loro civiltà beneficiando di conoscenze che non posseggono. Stiamo creando un "cybermondo", un mondo in cui tutto ruota intorno all'informatica. Molti pensano sia Internet, la Rete, il Web, chiamatelo come volete. Invece va ben oltre. Una realtà esistenziale nella quale ognuno di noi dovrebbe sapere essere ed avere una identità sia individuale che sociale. Sono sicuro che se potesse ritornare mio Padre continuerebbe a dire: "Ti hanno detto che il mondo è tondo e tu ci credi". Io gli rsponderei: "Eppur si muove!".
December 18, 2017
The publisher’s blurb for this book was spot-on: ‘A compelling exploration of how reputation affects every aspect of contemporary life’. It perfectly describes the objective of this book that manages to expertly get you thinking and considering your various reputations – both personal and professional and even corporate – as well as the role of reputations at-large.
This is less of a how-to book, but a book for thinking and latter exploitation. A lot of how we react to the reputations of others is unclear. We accept ourselves that not everything is black-and-white but we fall for the same categorisations of good, bad or indifferent. We accept reputational commentary from others often without validation. Why might we let the reputation of others determine someone else’s reputation? It was in the newspaper, it must be true? A minister wouldn’t do that sort of thing? I can’t imagine…? All of this and more surely mixes together as we evaluate the reputations of others – and they do the same to you and evaluate you, despite your best-efforts not to create any adverse impression.
The author mixes well theories and expertise from many different disciplines to try and consider the influencing factors and effects of reputation. It makes for surprisingly accessible and engaging reading. Reputations are everywhere. Will you buy from Company X? You are thinking about a holiday to City Y, is it safe? How about yet another loan to Country Z: can they be trusted? On a more local level, your boss may say this and that, what are their motivations and does their reputation colour what they are saying and why they are saying it? What’s the real story and what is the back story? How did you come to consider what ‘filter’ to apply? Their reputation, the reputation of others and perhaps, even, a consolidation of your self that impacts on your reputation as seen and measured by others!
The book gets you thinking! It is not a hyper-theoretical, hard-to-read dusty academic book. It deserves wider distribution and can be one of those thoughtful unexpected gems that a curious reader stumbles across. For the academic with a deeper interest, it is also a valuable work that can help research and understanding go further.
It can certainly keep you company for a long time whilst reading it and be in your mind even longer afterwards!
This is less of a how-to book, but a book for thinking and latter exploitation. A lot of how we react to the reputations of others is unclear. We accept ourselves that not everything is black-and-white but we fall for the same categorisations of good, bad or indifferent. We accept reputational commentary from others often without validation. Why might we let the reputation of others determine someone else’s reputation? It was in the newspaper, it must be true? A minister wouldn’t do that sort of thing? I can’t imagine…? All of this and more surely mixes together as we evaluate the reputations of others – and they do the same to you and evaluate you, despite your best-efforts not to create any adverse impression.
The author mixes well theories and expertise from many different disciplines to try and consider the influencing factors and effects of reputation. It makes for surprisingly accessible and engaging reading. Reputations are everywhere. Will you buy from Company X? You are thinking about a holiday to City Y, is it safe? How about yet another loan to Country Z: can they be trusted? On a more local level, your boss may say this and that, what are their motivations and does their reputation colour what they are saying and why they are saying it? What’s the real story and what is the back story? How did you come to consider what ‘filter’ to apply? Their reputation, the reputation of others and perhaps, even, a consolidation of your self that impacts on your reputation as seen and measured by others!
The book gets you thinking! It is not a hyper-theoretical, hard-to-read dusty academic book. It deserves wider distribution and can be one of those thoughtful unexpected gems that a curious reader stumbles across. For the academic with a deeper interest, it is also a valuable work that can help research and understanding go further.
It can certainly keep you company for a long time whilst reading it and be in your mind even longer afterwards!
December 27, 2019
This is one of the best kinds of philosophy book for me, relevant to the moment and challenging to my currently held beliefs. Origgi starts with the premise that we possess two egos, one the way we see our self, the other the way we think others see us. Both motivate us, but we are only beginning to realize how this second Ego is driving our actions through Reputation. Furthermore, Reputation becomes a basis for epistemology - that we come to know things through our relationship with others mediated through their Reputation.
This book challenged me in many ways, first as one who leans existentialist, I found myself questioning how one could even achieve an authentic life given the drive of this second ego? How can we be true to ourselves, when our existence is at least partially predicated on the perception of others? (thankfully she addresses this in her final chapter). Second, even as a self described philosophile I never found epistemology a compelling topic - but in this current world of “fake news” Origgi lays out the mechanics by which we come to know things through our relationships with other people - and the heuristics and algorithms that manage them. A must read for anyone trying to my make sense of the power of social media in the Reputation economy.
October 27, 2024
Little to none philosophy, mostly social psychology and economic sociology.
Somewhat informative but in the superficial way that public science books are. No non-platitudinous main thesis defended - reputations are what we think other people think of other people, and can be useful but also bad (?). Comments on a bunch of concerns du jour - e.g., social media, academic publishing, democracy - through the central conceptual scheme of the book, making it seem that it explains and can resolve all that's wrong with the world.
Somewhat informative but in the superficial way that public science books are. No non-platitudinous main thesis defended - reputations are what we think other people think of other people, and can be useful but also bad (?). Comments on a bunch of concerns du jour - e.g., social media, academic publishing, democracy - through the central conceptual scheme of the book, making it seem that it explains and can resolve all that's wrong with the world.
July 17, 2020
A compelling read arguing for a more nuanced understanding of how important reputation is to our lives. Using philosophy and game theory the book makes us consider why we trust some people and institutions more than others.It makes us consider we are less independent free actors than we'd like to think. Reputation shapes are experience and determines our lives.Sad it's over.
March 6, 2021
Mi trovo in imbarazzo perché pensavo che avrei finito per dare una valutazione inferiore a questo libro. Si tratta invece di un opera matura, molto puntuale, dai contenuti originali ma anche esposti con rigore. La filosofia contenuta è appassionante, oltre che di grande rilevanza.
April 16, 2020
The chapter that breaks down how we decide whether someone or information is trustworthy is particularly useful to anyone wanting to critically examine their own assumptions.
April 11, 2021
Interesting read. Mixing pop culture, academics and storytelling. As the author says it isn't a science, but kind of could be.
May 31, 2022
Just a little dated on the technology, so I'd be intrigued to see what Origgi thinks about today's Internet.
Read
March 17, 2018Ha! Origgi claims humans are, by nature, comparative.But I've stopped "rating" the books I read (with "stars", anyway). This should bolster my reputation as an iconoclast. All of which proves her point.
Reputation is a philosophical treatise, not a sociological one. Some of the writing is dense for an armchair philosopher like myself. Origgi uses many examples from culture and the news like the movie, Birdman, the novel, The Great Gadsby, and that gigantic error, Donald Trump, to illustrate her various arguments, which aids comprehension.
The conclusion is very readable, and compassionate. I think now, I would have liked to have read that first.
Some quotes:
"...to exist means to be assigned a value in a ranking, in a system that makes comparisons possible. To be is to be comparable."
"Judicious use of evidence depends not only on the secondhand information available to me but also on my epistemic responsibility, that is, on a cognitively vigilant attitude toward my sources of information and the reasons that lead me to trust them."
"The problem, as we have seen, is that our intuitive judgements about the value of reputational cues,..., become dangerous when they affect political life and public choices. This is not to say that naive and ill-informed uses of reputational indicia by institutions are always malevolent. (Explanatory approaches that savor of paranoia should be avoided.) Often they are simply the result of ignorance. On the other hand, the ignorance of rulers might reasonably be judged a form of professional malpractice. In any case, as Harry Frankfurt argued in his little essay "On Bullshit" (2006), incompetence can sometimes be a worse sin than dishonesty, because the incompetent cannot even assume responsibility for their own socially damaging transgressions."
"[W]e should begin to develop, in the social,sciences, theories that take as their unit of analysis not the rational self-interested actor, still dominant in economics and the neo-classical theory of rational choice, but a much more complex and dramatic personality, a reputational actor who is eminently social and whose rationality cannot be explained without taking symbolic motivations into account."
"If we do not take these consequences of our actions into account, if we limit ourselves to an individualistic and self-interested theory of behavior, not only will we run the risk of no longer understanding the true springs of human action, we will also be tempted to structure institutions around incentives and sanctions that ignore what motivates people to act..."
"Without consciousness of the interdependence between me and my image in the eyes of others, between my actions and my reputation, I cannot understand either who I am or why I act."
Reputation is a philosophical treatise, not a sociological one. Some of the writing is dense for an armchair philosopher like myself. Origgi uses many examples from culture and the news like the movie, Birdman, the novel, The Great Gadsby, and that gigantic error, Donald Trump, to illustrate her various arguments, which aids comprehension.
The conclusion is very readable, and compassionate. I think now, I would have liked to have read that first.
Some quotes:
"...to exist means to be assigned a value in a ranking, in a system that makes comparisons possible. To be is to be comparable."
"Judicious use of evidence depends not only on the secondhand information available to me but also on my epistemic responsibility, that is, on a cognitively vigilant attitude toward my sources of information and the reasons that lead me to trust them."
"The problem, as we have seen, is that our intuitive judgements about the value of reputational cues,..., become dangerous when they affect political life and public choices. This is not to say that naive and ill-informed uses of reputational indicia by institutions are always malevolent. (Explanatory approaches that savor of paranoia should be avoided.) Often they are simply the result of ignorance. On the other hand, the ignorance of rulers might reasonably be judged a form of professional malpractice. In any case, as Harry Frankfurt argued in his little essay "On Bullshit" (2006), incompetence can sometimes be a worse sin than dishonesty, because the incompetent cannot even assume responsibility for their own socially damaging transgressions."
"[W]e should begin to develop, in the social,sciences, theories that take as their unit of analysis not the rational self-interested actor, still dominant in economics and the neo-classical theory of rational choice, but a much more complex and dramatic personality, a reputational actor who is eminently social and whose rationality cannot be explained without taking symbolic motivations into account."
"If we do not take these consequences of our actions into account, if we limit ourselves to an individualistic and self-interested theory of behavior, not only will we run the risk of no longer understanding the true springs of human action, we will also be tempted to structure institutions around incentives and sanctions that ignore what motivates people to act..."
"Without consciousness of the interdependence between me and my image in the eyes of others, between my actions and my reputation, I cannot understand either who I am or why I act."
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews