Maybe I spent too much time reading Thomas Schelling (is that possible?), but my main reaction was to wonder how such trade-maximizing conventions get started. I mean the foot tapping, the leaning of the bag against the stall door, and the like. In the early stages of such conventions, I can think of a few paths:
1. Signal something harmless and non-incriminating and hope for reciprocation. Yelling out a clue-laden but non-obscene word or phrase ("Fire Island!") might do the trick. But if the other guy yells back "Berlin!", is that enough to act upon?
2. Signal something costly — incriminating or at least potentially embarrassing — in the hope of establishing your credibility as a social transgressor. Of course you hope to get a costly signal in return. A step-by-step escalation of the signals then follows, so that trust in mutual social deviance is established prior to action. At some point in the escalation the action is worth the risk because the other person is sufficiently out on a limb. As the years pass the escalation of signals proceeds more quickly and cuts out some of the intermediate steps.
3. The initial gains from trade are so high that most participants are willing to run the risk of the blatant signal and the equilibrium is inevitable.
4. High-demanding and reckless "pioneers" establish the convention, by signaling blatantly but against their self-interest. Nonetheless the convention becomes relatively safe once it spreads to many traders.
5. The convention never become so safe (ask Larry Craig) and so we have a separating equilibrium in which only the risk lovers manage to trade in this public environment.
My intuition suggests a mix of #2 and #4 as the most likely paths.
How might you signal your willingness, to a friend, to make fun of or gossip about a common acquaintance?
I think the “testing the waters” strategy has most merit. But there has to be some prior established intentions, otherwise you don’t know exactly which transgression you are fishing for. I imagine that could be embarrassing.
There’s a very funny and clever scene in one of Jake Arnott’s books (can’t remember which I’m afraid–and my summary may be slightly inaccurate) where a London criminal who was in prison from the 70s to the 90s gets out and has to deal with the consequences of changing fashions–when he went in, his preferred attire of shaved head and combat boots meant “Hard Violent Man” or whatever, read as skinheady–there he is on the Underground in the late 90s and a very similarly dressed fellow is eyeing him–he starts to get very agitated, does the guy have it in for him?–they make eye contact, the other fellow follows him off the Tube and approaches him in a park outside for sex–he beats the guy up…. They are in two different universes of signalling in other words…
Sheridan’s “The School for Scandal” has some good cues on gossip–Mrs. Candor is the character whose behavior is relevant to the question you ask at the end here (text pasted in from act 2):
Sir Pet. Ladies, your most obedient.—[Aside.] Mercy on me, here is the whole set! a character dead at every word, I suppose.
Mrs. Can. I am rejoiced you are come, Sir Peter. They have been so censorious—and Lady Teazle as bad as any one.
Sir Pet. That must be very distressing to you, indeed, Mrs. Candour.
Mrs. Can. Oh, they will allow good qualities to nobody; not even good nature to our friend Mrs. Pursy.
Lady Teaz. What, the fat dowager who was at Mrs. Quadrille’s last night?
Mrs. Can. Nay, her bulk is her misfortune; and when she takes so much pains to get rid of it, you ought not to reflect on her.
Lady Sneer. That’s very true, indeed.
Lady Teaz. Yes, I know she almost lives on acids and small whey; laces herself by pulleys; and often, in the hottest noon in summer, you may see her on a little squat pony, with her hair plaited up behind like a drummer’s and puffing round the Ring on a full trot.
Mrs. Can. I thank you, Lady Teazle, for defending her.
Sir Pet. Yes, a good defence, truly.
Mrs. Can. Truly, Lady Teazle is as censorious as Miss Sallow.
Crab. Yes, and she is a curious being to pretend to be censorious—an awkward gawky, without any one good point under heaven.
Mrs. Can. Positively you shall not be so very severe. Miss Sallow is a near relation of mine by marriage, and, as for her person, great allowance is to be made; for, let me tell you, a woman labours under many disadvantages who tries to pass for a girl of six-and-thirty.
Lady Sneer. Though, surely, she is handsome still—and for the weakness in her eyes, considering how much she reads by candlelight, it is not to be wondered at.
Mrs. Can. True, and then as to her manner; upon my word I think it is particularly graceful, considering she never had the least education: for you know her mother was a Welsh milliner, and her father a sugar-baker at Bristol.
Sir Ben. Ah! you are both of you too good-natured!
Sir Pet. Yes, damned good-natured! This their own relation! mercy on me!
Mrs. Can. For my part, I own I cannot bear to hear a friend ill spoken of.
Sir Pet. No, to be sure!
michael webster,
H. Peyton Young has written some famous articles and at least one major book on game theoretic
foundations for the origin and development of social conventions.
Great piece in the Sunday NYT on exactly this “America’s Toe-Tapping Menace.” Check it out at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/opinion/02macdonald.html?em&ex=1188964800&en=543db0d43dfd6f76&ei=5087
Hm, I think it’s more useful to draw parallels to male/female flirting. Often you hear about someone (politician, boss, etc.) getting into trouble because he made an “inappropriate advance”. But why would they make such “obviously” inappropriate advances if they weren’t successful sufficiently often?
Why did Craig make an obviously inappropriate advance if it weren’t successful sufficiently often?
The “touching the shoe” incident reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine in college. He entered the bathroom in our student union, and soon afterwards noticed a friend of his enter the stall next to him. He knew it was his friend because he’d just seen him outside with the same slacks and shoes on.
Anyway, as a prank, he decided to startle his friend by reaching down and grabbing his foot. He does, and the startled reply is from an evidently older man.
Good thing for my friend that it didn’t happen in Minnesota. And yes, it really was my “friend”.
“I think it’s more useful to draw parallels to male/female flirting.”
I agree, but I would take it past flirting. When a heterosexual date ends with, “Would you like to come up for a cup of coffee?” — that’s a pretty strong signal.
Question: Why is casual and anonymous sex predominantly found in the gay community? I think the heterosexual equivalent is a one-night-stand — and that’s pretty close to a committed relationship by comparison.
Question: Why is casual and anonymous sex predominantly found in the gay community?
because gay men are men. see this review for a summary of research on gender differences in sexual behavior
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3778/is_200101/ai_n8939383/pg_12
in a few words: men are more willing to engage in anonymous sex. homosexual men, then, are more likely to find willing partners than heterosexual men.
“I thought I was going to see some remarks as to why consensual sex (even for money) shouldn’t be a crime in the first place. …- do what you wish as long as you don’t harm others?”
I would probably be in favor of legalizing prostitution, but I’ll always be against anyone having sex in a public bathroom when children might be in there alone. This was an airport! There comes a time when boys feel too old to go with their mothers into the women’s restroom. I don’t want to send my 9 or 10 year old son into a room where men (or women, for that matter) may be having intercourse.
I would not want to see anybody in jail for soliciting sex or any other victimless crime — unless he himself played a part in making it illegal (which itself ought to be a felony, but unfortunately is legal).
I hope he gets 100 years.
(To those who object to the fact that the sex, if it had occurred, would have been public: that’s a consequence of the law. Get it out of the way and venues for casual sex will pop up wherever they’ll be used. Adam Smith’s invisible hand guarantees it.)
As far as how the code got started: I suspect it’s somewhere between your #4 and the way people cross the street in Middle East countries: A mob of people, each afraid to be first, forms on each corner until somebody gets jostled into stepping off the curb. Then a flood of people quickly follow: safety in numbers.
“How does a new player learn them?”
If you get stuck using public restrooms where the walls aren’t scoured or painted regularly, it is pretty common to see graffiti along the lines of:
BJ 555-1212
“tap foot for BJ”
or messages to meet at a certain time.
I’ll bet the Internet has changed this all pretty significantly.
“in a few words: men are more willing to engage in anonymous sex. homosexual men, then, are more likely to find willing partners than heterosexual men.”
This is why gay men and lesbian women are so different. Lesbians are much more predisposed to commitment, which is why this joke is so funny.
What do lesbians do on a second date?
Rent a U-Haul.
Here is an interesting commentary on this behavior: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2007/09/by_now_youve_pr.html
Note that once the system is established, new people can probably learn it by being propositioned when they’re looking to be propositioned. The assumption here is that nearly all people who don’t want to be propositioned will manage to signal that they’re not interested, and probably a lot will not even notice they’re doing so. Once they’ve done the negotiation a few times with people who know the protocol, they probably remember it from then on.
It’s interesting to ask if this is how conventions for trade among mutually unknown groups with no common language develop.
In the modern world, it’s usually not too hard to order dinner someplace where you don’t speak the language, albeit with a certain amount of risk of funny mistakes. (This is probably not so much fun with a food allergy, though.) Similarly, you can usually buy things from a store or a newsstand or coffeeshop without speaking any language in common with the guy selling it to you.
This morning, I was talking to a couple of property manager who’re moving to a new building. Relationship has been friendly but professional, no one knows the others’ orientation. (this isn’t verbatim, but it’s close)
PM1:The building’s mostly gay *rolls eyes*
Me: Well, it’s the big city
PM2:I’ve got nothing against them. And they’re everywhere now, not just downtown.
Me: I could do without the pride parade, I’m not a fan of nakedness on the street
PM2:Yeah, I agree. I don’t need to see that. They should ban it, it’s unnecessary. But live and let live.
PM1:You should see Barcelona, the one here is nothing compared to that
PM2: But different cities different customs. Here we’re more reserved, we do a lot of things differently than Europe, there they let it all hang out. Here we cover up.
etc etc
but there was a bit of “cognitive dissonance” going on.. from the tone of voice and the new expression on his face I could easily tell PM1 was tolerant but disapproving, and PM2 was extremely disgusted… conversation could have gone a lot farther but we all steered it away. Signals and positions established with probing remarks and body language, with enough “safety” remarks added that anyone could claim a listener misunderstood.
I come from asia, injoy 室內è¨è¨ˆ,work in a æ¬å®¶å…¬å¸,other enjoy isecosway和科士å¨,good see U。
Thanks.
See the interviews at http://megauploadfiles.com/
Comments on this entry are closed.