"Uncanny valley of sincerity" is the key thing here.
I regularly go to the same cafe for lunch. So some of the staff know me by name, but others who've just started working there don't. And I know their faces and one or two names. This is how it works on a normal human scale.
The corporate version of this delivers, as they say, asymmetrical friendliness. You see someone you've never met before and they know your name, birthday, etc. while you know nothing about them.
And especially in the airline context, all this is devoted to more perfect price discrimination. They know your favourite drinks order so they can sell you more drinks.
> You see someone you've never met before and they know your name, birthday, etc. while you know nothing about them
This made me think of what it must be like to be a celebrity. To have people fawn over you, whilst you can barely recall a fan's face for having seen so many.
I remember looking at John Cusack's Twitter feed around when he was setting up the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and it was a bit disturbing to see the number of strangers constantly propositioning him for sex, proposing marriage to him, asking him for money, or asking him to comment on their unusual ideas. I thought that that aspect of fame must not be that much fun for him or other people in his position.
I'm a musician in my area, and my dad comes in contact with a lot of people. It's not nearly on a "celebrity" scale, but about 2 or 3 times a week I get called out by name in public by a stranger. It's a really weird feeling. I'm pretty sure I would hate it if it happened constantly
Many years ago, I traveled to another city to see a Joe Satriani concert. I was really hyped to finally see him in concert, and hoped that I'd run into him and get a CD autographed.
So when I did run into him in the local community space, I had a thought: I could be another fawning fanboy, interrupting his shopping and day in general, or I could just think to myself "Hey, that's Satch!" and not bother him at all.
So I didn't bother him. I've long wondered if I made a good choice or not, now I think I made the right one.
One time in the 80s I took a date to a sushi place in Santa Monica. We ate, talked, had a nice time. When I went to pay, David Byrne was sitting right by the cash register. I'm sure he saw that I recognized him when we locked eyes very briefly, but I didn't bother him, just paid and left. (My date didn't recognize him -- so no second date.)
My theory is, why bother people just because they're famous? Unless they're looking for it, which is why I had a nice conversation with Moon Unit Zappa on Broadway in Seattle at the 76 station, where she was camped out promoting her movie The Spirit of '76.
I was in college in the LA area in the mid-1980s and worked for a valet company contracted by Los Angeles-area clients throwing birthday parties, gala events, awards ceremonies, etc. Though we were near Hollywood, we didn't often work for celebrities.
Except this once.
Meg Ryan was throwing a birthday party for her then-boyfriend, Dennis Quaid, and actors, musicians, and celebrities came to have their cars parked. Most of the valets were gushing and wowing over this or that celebrity or actor, but I tend not to care too much about star sightings and don't really go for celebrity worship.
A gray, older Citroen rolls up and it's my turn to park. Citroen are pretty low to the ground, only a little bit taller than Porsche roadsters, so even though I'm medium height I stood high above the car's roof with a good view into the driver's side.
The window rolled down and there he is, David Bryne, looking up at me and handing me his keys. His eyes seemed really big from that angle and I don't even remember him getting out of the car. I do remember that I had a feeling of awe and admiration (The Talking Heads had broken out on the Stop Making Sense tour and Byrne was known to be an engaged and consummate artist.)
Though our interaction was brief, Byrne's look suggested he understood I'd recognize him (I did!) and he looked at me directly and treated me as a fellow human providing him a service. No haste, no self-absorption, just a courteous exchange of pleasantries for service.
Or maybe I'm simply susceptible to being star struck by artists whose work I admire.
Not a good analogy. Being a celebrity brings features that are not available to non-celebrities (money, special treatment, etc.). Plus, celebrities often sell info. The Kardashians are a prominent example: The drink/food/whatever Kim Kardashian displays on TV might be very different from the drink/food/whatever she'd prefer on a flight. While facebook/google/apple might have access to that info, we only get to know whatever she decides to share (or sell).
> The drink/food/whatever Kim Kardashian displays on TV might be very different from the drink/food/whatever she'd prefer on a flight.
That doesn't strike me as so odd. There's lots of stuff I might read or watch in the comfort of my home that I might be embarrassed to read or watch on a plane where people will use their own preconceptions to judge me, accurately or not. For example, some Anime (and nothing all that weird, it's just the preconception that cartoons are for kids). I can't even get my wife not to judge me for that, so I might forego watching it on a plane just so I don't feel self conscious. I'm projecting an image of a responsible adult, Kim Kardashian is projecting and image of someone who likes X, Y or Z.
> For example, some Anime (and nothing all that weird, it's just the preconception that cartoons are for kids).
At this point it's not the age issue. I think most people get that there are animated shows for every demo at this point.
It's the fact that you had to preface with "nothing all that weird".
And the fact that I've heard that so often on the internet only to find out that "well, except for that, but she's not as young as she looks, she's actually a 5000 year old dragon. But they're all flirting with her because of her magic powers, not because she looks 8." Oookay...
> It's the fact that you had to preface with "nothing all that weird".
Yeah, but given the market it comes from and how prevalent it is there, that qualifier is really only used because some people don't realize saying "I watch anime" is sort of like saying "I watch a category that's a significant subset of Japanese mainstream television" when all people know is that the Japanese have some eclectic television by U.S. standards.
> And the fact that I've heard that so often on the internet only to find out that "well, except for that, but she's not as young as she looks, she's actually a 5000 year old dragon. But they're all flirting with her because of her magic powers, not because she looks 8." Oookay...
I hear you, and agree. That said, it's sort of like 5 years ago mentioning you use Reddit. Some subset of the public might only have heard about it through news reports/articles about some of the more problematic subreddits.
For what it's worth, my own tastes go more for the stylish and interesting stories that are harder to do when using live acting. There's some excellent (in style, story, or both) Science Fiction and fantasy that comes out as Anime (Steins;Gate, some of the Netflix series that have come out). Also, there's some really accessible ones I can watch with my son, such as Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood (which we just finished watching together, and is excellent).
> Yeah, but given the market it comes from and how prevalent it is there, that qualifier is really only used because some people don't realize saying "I watch anime" is sort of like saying "I watch a category that's a significant subset of Japanese mainstream television" when all people know is that the Japanese have some eclectic television by U.S. standards.
Such as mainstream Studio Ghibli anime "Pom Poko" which includes many songs and sight gags about testicles.[0] Or the Penis Festival.[1]
And this is another reason why privacy is a good thing. Even if you have "nothing to hide," how often do you want to be on display, with the change in behavior that implies?
"Uncanny valley of sincerity" is the key thing here.
I beg to differ with analogy (though not the rest of your post). The "uncanny valley" is a hypothetical situation where a construct is unpleasant because it seems human but not human enough [1]. The (supposed) solution to the uncanny valley effect is for a thing to seem more human.
But that's not the problem here. The problem is a corporation here really isn't your friend. The corporation aims to sell as much to you as possible at the highest mark-up possible. No amount of them improving the experience is going to change that.
The nice things about a local cafe have to incidentally nice. The cafe isn't a better designed experience some better designer has created to make more money, since then you'd be paying for every personalism of this service.
> You see someone you've never met before and they know your name, birthday, etc. while you know nothing about them.
It's not the person in front of you who knows you, it's the corporation, and you are just speaking to an agent of a multi-embodied hydra.
Your primary goal should not be to know the agent, but to know the corporation you are dealing with, what its needs and wants are, how you personally fit into that picture, and whether the goals of the corporation and you are compatible.
However, sometimes knowing the agents of a corp well on a personal level can help in that process.
> However, sometimes knowing the agents of a corp well on a personal level can help in that process.
Exactly right. For example, there have been many stories here of people who are able to get a form of customer service from Google because they know someone who works there.
I don't mind someone being nice to me. I just want that if they're going to do it, do it when they want to. If some airline person isn't having a great day I don't need them to wish me happy birthday... let's just get through this transaction so they can get get on with their day.
IIRC there was a lawsuit where some retail employees were required to wink at customers as they came into other store. Someone at corporate decided this was a good idea. Something only folks disconnected from the actual store would come up with sitting in a conference room and certain that they would never have to wink at strangers all day long... or be winked at unexpectedly.
Empirically however, it's an artificial distinction.
You can see this in very high class concierge services, where they have deep dossiers on their clients, but a rotating staff of concierge's. Often there is a primary point of contact concierge that relay's the client's preferences to the others.
Taking that same approach, especially when it comes to measurable behaviors (types of foods/drinks, media consumption etc...), why would it be any different mechanically other than the fact that you prefer familiarity with the person you are talking with?
The only difference in whether data is creepy or not lies in the answer to a single question: Did you willingly provide it? In other words, did you choose to give it to them?
I tell the concierge service what type of table I like at a restaurant, to put into their file on me, so I expect anyone there to know that.
I do not tell a Bumble date where I work, so I do not expect them to know that (even though they could Linkedin stalk me).
A lowball offer on a house I am selling could be viewed as insulting. But, if before the offer I let it slip that an ugly gas station was about to go up next door, then all of a sudden the lowball offer is not insulting anymore.
> The only difference in whether data is creepy or not lies in the answer to a single question
Not at all.
> Did you willingly provide it AND REMEMBER?
People have inherent expectations and soft historical memories. The idea that consent is some boundary line is a dystopian legal mechanic, which is specifically at odds with the psychology of humans. Agreeing to something doesn't affect if it's "creepy" (a psychological defense mechanism).
I think you are using an unhelpful definition of "consent", albeit one that is indeed shared by some legal constructs?
The idea that "you consented to me having this info, so anything I can come up with to do with this info is fair game" is obviously bullshit. But that's just because it's quite obviously not really consent, but rather a case of someone trying to justify doing something that is obviously lacking consent. People generally consent to specific uses of information, so if someone is ignoring the explicit or implied purpose of collecting some information, they are really just pretending there is consent.
Which is, BTW, why the GDPR limits use of collected information to specific purposes (which have to be either inherently required for fulfilling some obligation, or there needs to be consent for that specific purpose).
Empirically, interesting usage of the word. What exactly are you arguing for? We can be objective but we have access to a rich and beautiful subjectivity. It's interesting in all these "measurable" behaviors there is no room for measuring an individual's suffering, which is quite real, but it seems those making the decisions are far removed from it.
A co-worker went to try a new restaurant, and ordered his drink. The bar tender made his drink as ordered, and then realized that there was only one person in town who ordered that drink and what he wanted was slightly different from what was ordered. Because she knew what he wanted she remade the drink to be exactly what the customer wanted not what the waitress wrote down. (she delivered the drink personally just to verify that it really was the customer she thought it was and not a new guy who might have wanted it as ordered, which is how I heard the story)
This is a good story that illustrates the problem very well. I don't want to be treated according to what my statistical cohort in a certain particular context suggests. But I have no problem with a personalized treatment from my bank personnel, from my cleaning staff, or from the undertaker. Or from the bartender who knows me.
That’s a lot of effort for a drink that is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things, but sure you could probably raise a couple million while real problems go unanswered. I think that is my problem with all the efforts on personalization, we should be working on more meaningful problems with open data analysis on high impact social projects. It doesn’t pay well which is the most exquisite torture of capitalism.
Of course what everyone else practises is relatively unimportant but your little pet social project is meaningful. Sure, buddy.
The fact that craftsmanship in this role can be rewarded is a fantastic thing. The people who can do things well can meet the people who want those things done well.
Personal nastiness breaks the site guidelines and will eventually get your account banned, so please edit it out of what you post here. If you'd (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
The comment would be just fine with just the second paragraph.
I seek to minimize suffering. This can be in transportation, housing, healthcare, education, nutrition, or legal fields. These have a disproportionate impact on our lives and are neglected with low salaries. How does this make sense? I'm disappointed you view this as a pet project. I disagree that craft for the sake of craft is fantastic but I would not personally attack you for it, if you have the safety net you are welcome to pursue what interests you find rewarding. Many do not have the economy of doing so, they are who I work for.
I'm arguing that lamenting "mechanization" of social interaction - whether between corporate employee and client as in this example, or even between individuals - is akin to appealing to ether as a virtue of the universe.
If interactions between actors can be measured (which they can to some level of specificity in certain contexts), and the desires of the actors can be understood to such a degree (which we're starting to be able to do), then we can model actions which increase or reduce the likelihood of desired outcome, and following from that can produce and optimize decision support systems that nudge users toward some mutually beneficial state that may have otherwise been opaque to both actors.
People seem to hate this idea because it basically puts hard determinism right in their face - in that your past behaviors if known well enough should be predictive of future actions ceterus paribus.
It's often argued that, such a granularity of measurement in social dimensions is impossible technically, or the fact of being measured changes their behavior. I wouldn't argue either of those to be untrue, only that it need not be perfect to increase the overall optimization of the system.
So instead of saying, yes lets use measurement to optimize our system of interactions across commerce and relations, people bristle at the mere concept of social engineering in the Popperian sense of the term because it feels restrictive to our sense of "free will." I argue the opposite, that doing such would simply make us more aware of our predilections and much more likely to be able to align them across groups.
>> nudge users toward some mutually beneficial state
How do you agree on that ? Because that's currently missing in most selling processes that use manipulation - that's exactly why manipulation is used in the first place.
There was a book called Nudge that takes up this topic to some extent, basically hacking people's decisions in "beneficial" ways, like making healthy foods more prominent in grocery stores, or changing organ donation from opt in to opt out. (Not sure those examples are entirely representative of the book, but they're the main ones I remember.) I was ambivalent. It was interesting what could be done to subconsciously influence people, but I bristle at the idea of being manipulated without my awareness, even if it's already prevalent, because usually it's done to benefit other-than-me.
My approach to education requires the students understand the subject and build their own representations. Nudging in the large is not acceptable to me, but it the small perhaps to gain the tools for understanding. Tricking someone into understanding a thing for themselves seems ok.
Yes I mean empirically. There is no theoretical difference between what an individual human perceives about another person and what can possibly be tangibly measured about that person by some combination of systems.
Right, sometimes it's just the standard of service. I wrote an app for a local restaurant/bar in exchange for lifetime free food/drinks and I still get great service. This is also in a place where tips aren't a thing.
You can still mess with them, however. On airplanes, claiming misidentification would be unwise. Also in retail, if you're epaying. But if it's just cash, and they've identified you through your phone or whatever, it's fair game to play.
I regularly go to the same cafe for lunch. So some of the staff know me by name, but others who've just started working there don't. And I know their faces and one or two names. This is how it works on a normal human scale.
The corporate version of this delivers, as they say, asymmetrical friendliness. You see someone you've never met before and they know your name, birthday, etc. while you know nothing about them.
And especially in the airline context, all this is devoted to more perfect price discrimination. They know your favourite drinks order so they can sell you more drinks.