American Idol and the impending NBC Jay Leno experiment are chiefly about breaking down the barriers and integrating advertising into the viewer experience. Every online ad lives right on the same screen with the content. In other words, we are the future that television aspires to be. Not surprisingly, points one and two add up to point three. We start with an attentive, lean-forward consumer of information; that should be worth a multiple of seven right there!
Personalization and Targeting. Who knew?
And with online video just getting bigger, better and faster…. Brand Movement.
The Peacock Principle
It moves consumers from one side of the persuasion scale to the other. I first encountered it when I was fifteen. I was, at the time, a fairly serious World of Warcraft player. Most people do these areas with their guilds persistent groups of players on a set schedule with a set roster, but occasionally someone would assemble a group of strangers to join up and do them.
Handicap principle - Wikipedia
A lot of competing groups required a certain tier of in-game equipment for players joining their groups. In most cases, the requirements were pretty silly — suppose, for example, that a typical boss required a gear level of and this is a totally arbitrary number 50 to defeat if your group was of average skill, and dropped level 60 equipment.
- Elegant Thanksgiving Day Buffet Recipes.
- The Sea-Kings of Crete.
- Handicap principle!
- Spirou et Fantasio - Tome 26 - DU CIDRE POUR LES ETOILES (French Edition).
- Fallen Land.
Your average group would require level 60 or 65 equipment to join, meaning that most of the players in it only had one or two items that could be replaced to their benefit from the zone they were doing. Competing groups, by requiring exorbitant levels of equipment, artificially selected for higher scores on this axis, meaning that their groups were unusually skilled. By not doing that, I was in the position of the company that is willing to start work at 11 AM. My players had equipment that, for average players, would have been enough — but they were not average players, because my competitors had artificially selected better-than-average players, so I had worse-than-average ones.
In particular, at no point was fifteen-year-old me ever aware of this effect, and she never consciously compensated — only more than a decade after the fact can she look back and see clearly. I imagine, by now, that you have some sense of what I am talking about.
A peacock's tail: how Darwin arrived at his theory of sexual selection
The Peacock Principle: Suppose a competitive system is creating some universal, stable, and apparently unnecessary cost X to entry, and no or very few competitors arise over a period of time that do not impose cost X. For this section only I am not claiming that this is necessarily true, only that it seems to fit an otherwise-effective model and is probably worth investigation. It is more or less a truism in academics at this point that standardized tests are a pretty poor measure of performance.
But wait a minute. This is starting to sound awfully familiar. A high, apparently unnecessary cost, imposed nearly universally, that remains unchallenged despite its apparent detrimental effects? But we have a bit of a conundrum here, because the obvious hidden traits Y one would like to filter by are well-accounted-for by things like GPA. Things like IQ, work ethic, and so on all fall into this category. In this case, Y is not invisible, exactly — but it has to be treated as though it is, because it would be illegal or overly controversial to treat it as a visible variable.
And it is well-known that the racial and economic groups typically under-represented in academia — blacks, Hispanics, and poor folk — are exactly the groups with relatively poor performance on standardized tests, to the point that the tests have been accused of racism in their own right. In this model, no active malice on the part of test authors is required at all, and I doubt that any exists. As a result, universities will look at their data, quite reasonably decide that better test scorers seem to do better in academia, and continue using the test as an apparently-reliable measure of performance.
In, On Darwin and the Making of Sexual Selection , published last month by the University of Chicago Press, Richards explores this confluence of connections Darwin had to make and, just as crucially, the challenges he had to overcome in order to reach his conclusion. It was the culmination of a lifetime of intellectual legwork — and yet he was constantly called upon to validate it until his death in April Darwin struggled significantly to cement his theory, as evident not only from the wealth of unpublished personal correspondence and marginalia that Richards draws upon in her book, but the length of time it took him to publish it.
In fact, Darwin first stumbled upon sexual selection through his study of racial difference, Richards says. This is shewn