You Get What You Ask For
Last night I posted links to my Facebook.com analysis and Ned's reply on my Facebook profile. In a superb example of Coase's Theorem, the number of pictures of me currently on Facebook has almost doubled, and there are actual visitors to this blog other than me and Ned.
(For a geologist, I really am an economics dork: Coase's theorem says that in the absence of transaction costs an externality will be efficiently corrected through bargaining. In this case, the plea I posted on this website was sufficient to convice others to post more photos of me online, thus fixing the original externality. No subsidies, taxes, or regulations needed.)
While Ned has correctly theorized that "windswept hair and a dynamic smile" is the norm for self-posted pictures, regrettably (for me, at least) the same is not true of pictures posted by others. In the two new pictures of me online, not only am I sporting the "freshman 15" that I put on for some reason during my junior year, but I am in fact shirtless and offensively pale. As per the title of the post, I guess I got what I asked for. (I do assure dear readers and friends out there that the active Bay Area lifestyle has returned me at least partially to fighting shape.)
Nevertheless, I will use my embarrassment at this turn of events to comment on an important consideration for all twenty-something hipsters out there: image.
In terms of the Facebook, image creation is actually quite easy. All you have to do is post a cool picture, create a sufficiently ironic profile, and friend the proper number of people such that you are popular but not trying so hard that you have 400 friends.
However, with the advent of photo posting this past fall, an important aspect of image creation is now left in the hands of others in the community. Anyone out there who is so inclined can post a picture of me. An unflattering pose can be instantly viewed by hundreds of judging friends, classmates, and profile browsers. Some thoughts on this:
1. The Facebook wisely includes veto power over posted pictures. I can't get the pictures removed (well, perhaps I could complain if they are egregiously ugly), but I can remove a tag that identifies me as a subject in the picture. How ugly must the picture of me be before I'm willing to remove myself? One obviously needs to balance the offense the friend who posted the photo will feel with the damage to one's image that the ugly picture has caused.
2. The cost-benefit function to one's image from online photos is not symmetric. The gain from a great picture is less than the damage from an ugly picture.
3. Posted photos are likely to be taken in generally flattering situations (parties, formals, vacations, etc.), which is helpful for image creation. It is likely that the inequities from the previous point will be balanced out. Thus, the sum of all pictures posted online are likely to affect one's image in the correct way. If you're a dork, you're going to have more dorky pictures. If you're cool, you're going to have more cool pictures.
4. Are Facebook users by definition unhip? Ned might have a better perspective on this living in San Francisco.
5. One's online image is increasingly important. Among some MMORPG players, their online persona has eclipsed their real one. The virtual John will not play on the scout team.
6. I think I am probably equating a good image too closely with popularity or beauty. "Image" is certainly more than a good facebook or myspace profile, but an online presence is undoubtedly becoming more important overall.
So how to manage one's online photo presence? Ned told me back in high school that confidence was the key to getting girls. Wise advice certainly, not the least for relationships. Thus I remain confident that my image is stronger than a few unflattering photos. But I have hedged my bets with a striking new main photo for my Facebook profile.
(For a geologist, I really am an economics dork: Coase's theorem says that in the absence of transaction costs an externality will be efficiently corrected through bargaining. In this case, the plea I posted on this website was sufficient to convice others to post more photos of me online, thus fixing the original externality. No subsidies, taxes, or regulations needed.)
While Ned has correctly theorized that "windswept hair and a dynamic smile" is the norm for self-posted pictures, regrettably (for me, at least) the same is not true of pictures posted by others. In the two new pictures of me online, not only am I sporting the "freshman 15" that I put on for some reason during my junior year, but I am in fact shirtless and offensively pale. As per the title of the post, I guess I got what I asked for. (I do assure dear readers and friends out there that the active Bay Area lifestyle has returned me at least partially to fighting shape.)
Nevertheless, I will use my embarrassment at this turn of events to comment on an important consideration for all twenty-something hipsters out there: image.
In terms of the Facebook, image creation is actually quite easy. All you have to do is post a cool picture, create a sufficiently ironic profile, and friend the proper number of people such that you are popular but not trying so hard that you have 400 friends.
However, with the advent of photo posting this past fall, an important aspect of image creation is now left in the hands of others in the community. Anyone out there who is so inclined can post a picture of me. An unflattering pose can be instantly viewed by hundreds of judging friends, classmates, and profile browsers. Some thoughts on this:
1. The Facebook wisely includes veto power over posted pictures. I can't get the pictures removed (well, perhaps I could complain if they are egregiously ugly), but I can remove a tag that identifies me as a subject in the picture. How ugly must the picture of me be before I'm willing to remove myself? One obviously needs to balance the offense the friend who posted the photo will feel with the damage to one's image that the ugly picture has caused.
2. The cost-benefit function to one's image from online photos is not symmetric. The gain from a great picture is less than the damage from an ugly picture.
3. Posted photos are likely to be taken in generally flattering situations (parties, formals, vacations, etc.), which is helpful for image creation. It is likely that the inequities from the previous point will be balanced out. Thus, the sum of all pictures posted online are likely to affect one's image in the correct way. If you're a dork, you're going to have more dorky pictures. If you're cool, you're going to have more cool pictures.
4. Are Facebook users by definition unhip? Ned might have a better perspective on this living in San Francisco.
5. One's online image is increasingly important. Among some MMORPG players, their online persona has eclipsed their real one. The virtual John will not play on the scout team.
6. I think I am probably equating a good image too closely with popularity or beauty. "Image" is certainly more than a good facebook or myspace profile, but an online presence is undoubtedly becoming more important overall.
So how to manage one's online photo presence? Ned told me back in high school that confidence was the key to getting girls. Wise advice certainly, not the least for relationships. Thus I remain confident that my image is stronger than a few unflattering photos. But I have hedged my bets with a striking new main photo for my Facebook profile.
posted by John V at 6:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home