« George Clooney | Main | Best Sentence on Labor Day »
Larry Craig
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?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 3, 2007 at 06:27 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
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.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Sep 3, 2007 7:53:06 AM
Perhaps what escalates is not the explicitness of the request, but rather the risk of the venue. It seems very low-risk and high-gain for the very first such encounters to happen in relatively 'safe' environments: seedy bars, clubs or the like. There, it is relatively safe to make an explicit request.
As safer means of signaling evolve in a safe environment (a big if), then the potential risk is reduced, allowing these acts to occur in riskier venues.
Posted by: Link at Sep 3, 2007 8:15:28 AM
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!
Posted by: Jenny Davidson at Sep 3, 2007 9:46:05 AM
I think that the origins and evolutions of conventions is one of the most important, but neglected research areas. I would love to see, for example, a game theoretic inspired history of traffic signals. Why do some countries continue to behave as if the rules of the road are mere suggestions, not to be taken seriously?
Perhaps with the right empirical background, the methodological choices you mention would be more obvious.
Posted by: michael webster at Sep 3, 2007 9:46:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Sep 3, 2007 9:50:21 AM
Can Darwin contribute? Start with an ecologic niche of homosexuals looking for (or willing to settle for) fast anonymous sex (no lesbians, no gay bars, etc.). Anonymity is a prerequisite for the signaling behavior to evolve. (Presumably, once two people have had even brief sex, they'll recognize each other the next time and conversation can replace signals?) Maybe that's why Minneapolis and Atlanta, two "airport hubs", were mentioned in the stories I saw. They provide the necessary high ratio of transient anonymous sex seekers.
Include a transmission mechanism--does each young homosexual evolve his own signal, or do that gay friends share the behavorial meme that works for them? I'd assume the latter is much more common.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw at Sep 3, 2007 10:29:32 AM
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%0A
Posted by: Jo at Sep 3, 2007 10:45:10 AM
For a game-theoretic approach to social conventions, I cannot over-recommend Marek Kaminski's Games Prisoners Play. A Solidarity activist, Kaminski was jailed in Communist Poland. Incarcerated, he studied the bizarre and elaborate customs of the ruling caste, the grypsmen. The book contains many interesting games, including the answer to the all-important question "ARE YOU A GRYPSMAN?"
Posted by: Timothy at Sep 3, 2007 11:20:09 AM
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?
Posted by: Person at Sep 3, 2007 12:03:59 PM
Tyler,
I'm striking out on the name, but I vaguely recall a theorem from a few decades ago that says that, given uncertain signals, I will never be sure that my message has been verified. I believe the paper involved two people sending messages in envelopes with no other communication. I'd imagine that such a result would present an interesting conclusion for a risk-averse agent such as Mr. Craig!
Posted by: cure at Sep 3, 2007 12:09:53 PM
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".
Posted by: Henry V at Sep 3, 2007 1:34:02 PM
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. Isn't this one of the libertarian precepts - do what you wish as long as you don't harm others?
Obviously the laws controlling sex have their basis in our religious origins, which only pushes the issue back one step. Why do so many religions put limits on human behavior which don't affect others adversely?
I can understand that there is an interest in preventing sexual exploitation and, perhaps, it was easier to control this by making a blanket prohibition, but we now have an extensive set of laws to prevent all types of exploitation so why should sex still be treated differently?
I'll just give a single example. When Jackie Coogan was a child actor he was taken advantage of so badly by his parents that a whole set of laws was put into place which govern the money earned by child stars. There were also laws about how long they could work and how much schooling they had to receive. So child actors are not as exploited as much anymore. We have to wait until the are financially independent to see them make fools of themselves instead!
Posted by: robertdfeinman at Sep 3, 2007 1:40:10 PM
"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.
Posted by: SheetWise at Sep 3, 2007 1:56:52 PM
Unlike child labour would be hard for a politician to discuss prostitution regulation.They will be mocked for years in night talk shows and Saturday Night Live.In the Swimmer a 60s movie with Kirk Douglas, the people laughed at the leading character ´s wife attempt to legalize prostitution.Also see:http://www.slate.com/id/2173112.And as Kundera said there is nothing more troubling for "great men and women" than to be ridiculized
In the other hand, conservatives have no problem with the ridicule associated with laws like the one that would forbide to show underware like Superman or the plumber.Or the Florida law regulating the size of thongs , so you dont show too much.
And if you regulated prostitution. that would make easier to avoid explotation ,where would the red light houses be built? Not in my neighbourhood , of course.
Posted by: JEAN at Sep 3, 2007 2:43:57 PM
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.
Posted by: p-ter at Sep 3, 2007 4:15:11 PM
I have two questions:
1. Is making unpublicized arrests for such conduct an effective way of discouraging the behavior? How is word supposed to get out among anonymous participants that a particular airport is risky? And if the intent is to discourage the behavior, wouldn't discrete notices of surveillance, perhaps inside the stalls, be more effective?
2. How is it that Roll Call, a tiny and essentially local Washington paper, is the paper that broke the story. I'd think most of those with immediate knowledge of the police and judicial proceedings (officers, fellow officers, clerks, etc) and with a desire to blab, would contact a local news outlet in Minneapolis, or perhaps a national news outlet. Roll Call is a surprising and sophisticated choice. And that makes me think the judge or the DA was the dimedropper.
Posted by: BHN at Sep 3, 2007 6:56:53 PM
"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.
Posted by: Ann at Sep 3, 2007 7:19:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9uoWHDh8U
Posted by: John at Sep 3, 2007 7:22:01 PM
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.
Posted by: John David Galt at Sep 3, 2007 9:10:19 PM
I think we've all missed an associated point: Now that this convention of signals has been established, how does a new player learn them?
A newly elected congressman (for example) arrives in Washington. How does he learn what the signals are for establishing an illicit encounter?
For the hetrosexual "would you like to come up for a cup of coffee?" we have a range of TV shows and movies to educate the young teenagers about to embark on such activities. But for less publicly acknowledged actions, how is the knowledge spread?
Posted by: doctorpat at Sep 3, 2007 10:30:29 PM
"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.
Posted by: Jeff at Sep 3, 2007 11:16:58 PM
"(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.)"
They already have -- they're call motels and hotels.
That was really the point of my earlier question -- apparently the process of registering for a room is a bit too public for this type of anonymous sex. I'm not up to speed on what actually takes place (and I'm not asking) -- but I'm guessing there's not a lot of foreplay. It's possible they only need a minute or two, so the price of a room would seem excessive.
Posted by: SheetWise at Sep 4, 2007 12:00:56 AM
"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.
Posted by: Christina at Sep 4, 2007 9:39:08 AM
All communication has 3 parts. The sender, the reciever and the message. Strange conventions like passwords and secret handshakes apparently have to start somewhere. When you have a challenge and password, everybody is given the phrases and committ them to memory. When you get a secret handshake, you are taught the handshake by the existing members of the club. Now how a long obtuse signalling system that mimics a busy shopper/traveller in gastro-intestinal distress came to be a signal for getting strange favors in a bathroom came to be is odd.
For a signalling system to work there has to be a generous seed population where this is understood and signals are communicated between. Then new members would have to be screened to recieve the codewords/signals. The name of the game is covert, and we do not want the enemy or outside population to be aware of the codewords. Then there has to be a mechanism to change to codewords when they are discovered by the outside population. Now how the initial communication from a close knit group of anonymous sex seekers, became public enough that it actually became anonymous is beyond me. probably word of mouth. But the word of mouth system delays changes to the codewords, and the advantage turns to the outside population (cops on stings).
Posted by: Jacob at Sep 4, 2007 12:23:48 PM
Here is an interesting commentary on this behavior: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2007/09/by_now_youve_pr.html
Posted by: Beau at Sep 4, 2007 5:17:13 PM
