#Reputation Loops Matthew Schutte [email protected]
Abstract Identity is a process of perception that is part of how organisms (such as individuals) and social organisms (such families, companies, communities or governments) sense, interpret, decide and act. Useful information requires differences that can be perceived by the receiver of information. Meaning making (and consequently identification processes) is a result of correlations that reach the recipient in some form. An agent-centric framework for thinking about identity is presented and a general theory for how collections of participants are able to come into contextually useful alignment as part of the functioning of complex, living systems. An application of this pattern is then made to the functioning of reputation in a community and an outline is articulated for how people may be able to make use of digital tools such as holochain to augment existing human coordiation patterns and enable generative, socio-technical sense making systems.
“It pays to understand identity, so the systems we build intentionally enable human dignity instead of accidentally destroy it." Joe Andrieu, Functional Identity Primer
Identity is a process, not a static trait. It has its roots in our ability to remember past experiences, to do pattern recognition, and consequently, to improve our ability to navigate our circumstances over time. When we are able to share about our experiences with others, we are able to have our direct experience improve not only our own situational awareness, but also that of others as well. In this social context, the term reputation is often used to describe information that is shared.
However, it can be easy to fall into the trap of thinking about an identity as an Identifier (like a social security number or a verifiable credential that was signed by a particular private key). However, if we instead retain the mental discipline to remind ourselves that, as Joe Andrieu puts it “Identity is in the eye of the beholder” we are reminded that identity is really not about the object or person being observed, but rather about the party that is doing the observing. The information that they have access to will influence how they act. Any information that does not directly or indirectly alter the observer’s state will have no influence on them. I’ve previously written about the tensions with regard to identity and social regulation and won’t repeat that here but to simply state that individual humans are dynamic and complex, as are the communities that they form. In those shifting contexts, static referents, dangling in isolation, aren’t a whole lot of help.
Information that is received and that can be compared with or correlated to with other information is, as Gregory Bateson put it “The difference that makes a difference.” But from whose perspective should these comparisons or correlations be made?
I find that stepping away from the digital context momentarily can be instructive here. I look outside and see a surfer walking by. He is someone that I’ve seen in the water before. But today, he has a child of 6 or 7 with him. They are going to the beach. I think to myself, “I didn’t realize Mike had a son. I guess I only know him as a surfer that prefers it when the waves get big.”
The correlations are being made inside of me, the observer. Whether or not Mike is, in fact, a dad, isn’t necessarily the case. Its not that I’m downloading some fact from elsewhere, I’m doing pattern recognition and making guesses. My behavior going forward might be different. I might ask him about his son next time I see him. And he might respond “What son? I don’t have a son?” and a bit of back and forth will reveal that I saw him with his nephew, not his son. These new experiences, this new “information” will augment my understanding of the situation. Again, the correlations are happening within me, the observer.
This process is natural. Creatures that are poor at it tend not to be long for this world. They tend to be unable to distinguish friend from foe, predator from prey or peaches from poison. If I were to take a stab at why we have these identity and reputation processes, i’d say that they improve the coordinative capacity of individuals as well as communities by improving the ability for past experiences, both personal and shared, to increase their situational awareness and their effectiveness in a complex and changing world.
A piece of data, stripped out of context, is meaningless. So the question becomes what is the context in which this bit of information is held.
It can be tempting to believe that the information context is anchored in the subject that the information is about. But that isn't the case. The context that is relevant is the context of the observer, the party that is receiving this bit of information. The context that that information is landing in, mixing with, and augmenting is the realm of the observer’s physical being, their brain, their memory, sculpted as it has been by their past experiences as well as those of their ancestors. That context is informed not only by the particular channel or technical mechanism through which a certain bit of information is being communicated. Rather, that context is informed by all of the various forms of information and histories of experience that observer has participated in as well as those that they anticipate they might participate in.
Where does the buck stop? It stops with the observer -- and the action that they take or forego. If this information leads them to act differently, it impacted them and their behavior.
But at least two questions remain: 1) why would this be useful (favored by evolution)? And what does it have to do with decentralized identity systems?
Simple abilities to remember the past (to retain a state change) and communicate about that to others can lead groups of social animals to have a remarkably beneficial asymmetry in the propagation of learnings and of failures. A short story about how a beehive explores territory can make this visible: ... ... ...
TO DO:
Learning Loops in Complex Adaptive Systems Reputation as a tool for leveraging trust in existing relationships or processes Crossing of perspectives at the nexus of the observer Use of a series of Verifiable Claims for closing a reputation loop that enables a relying party (observer) to feel confident about some assertion or to use it in conjunction with other information. Iteration and improved sensemaking.