At 08:12 PM 12/08/2001 -0700, BB wrote:
>Bringing the xmca writer rankings in line with Mandelbrot's derivation
>requires
>thinking that it costs less for the top writers than for those higher in
>numerical rank to write a message. In other words, it "costs less" for mike to
>write than Paul, and in turn Paul, than Diane, etc.
Hmmmm. I can't help being uncomfortable with a requirement to assume that
all such behaviours can be attributed to a cost/loss motivation which
implies an econometric perspective on what we do here and in other such
splaces.
We would, by extention, have to assume that:
1- Either Mike's time or posts (or both) are "cheaper" than, say, Diane's
or Kathie's or mine or whoever's
2- That low-cost is motivation, not (eg) high- or low-involvement in the
issue (there are squillions of other possible reasons)
3 -That other factors, such as shyness, *prevent* people from posting.
4 - That there is no "cost" in reading
5 - that some people's time (i.e. life in the last) is worth more than others'
6 - That posting here is a negative (a cost) rather than a positive (e.g.)
an enriching process for learning, or a prestige- or esteem-building
exercise --- etc --- ad infinitum
Regards,
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:07 PDT