Julian Sanchez “writes”:http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/07/24/mmmm-pedantry/
Quick obnoxious quibble with this:
bq. Before I put forth new thoughts, let me clarify that while I do think it is deceptive to clean an always messy living room before a first date — that it is “apt to give a false impression of reality” — I don’t think there is anything wrong with doing so, especially because by general consensus there is no expectation of transparency in that situation.
This just seems like it’s got to be a definitional error. At minimum, to call some behavior deceptive would seem to require either that (1) the person performing it intends that others be deceived, or (2) that the behavior either does or under ordinary circumstances would cause someone to form false beliefs. If, in fact, there’s a general consensus that people will typically tidy up before bringing a first date back—or before having guests over generally—then it seems wrong to expect anyone to form a false belief about the usual state of the apartment, and therefore wrong to ascribe to anyone who tidies up the intention of causing such false beliefs to form.
But surely this _does_ form false beliefs (or at least beliefs that are not as accurate as they might be in the best of all possible worlds). The best way to think about this problem is surely as a “signaling game”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_games. Imagine a world in which there are two types, (1) Considerate tidyer-uppers, and (2) inconsiderate slobs (for the purposes of argument, I bracket the possibility that tidyer-uppers may be inconsiderate and that slobs may be thoughtful, caring people). Both types want to get lucky and believe that sending a signal suggesting that they are thoughtful and tidy will improve their chances. The problem is that the signal in question – tidying up before the first date – is relatively cheap. What we may reasonably expect to occur (and what we observe) is a pooling equilibrium, where _both_ types converge on sending out the same signal, and tidy up furiously before the date, and the dated one has to try to figure out (given his/her complete information about the underlying incidence of the two types in the relevant population, natch) whether the dating one is in fact a considerate tidyer-upper, or is merely simulating same with ulterior motives of the basest class and variety. That there is a general social consensus on this is surely a _product_ of this pooling equilibrium rather than its cause – after all, given these sets of beliefs, anyone who fails to tidy up is sending out some very bad signals indeed.