re: #103 Jaerik

Right, the determination is definitely going to be subjective and up to the individual in question.

The scientist in me wants to pin down the variables, though, even if it’s impossible to quantify.

I assume whether or not you personally are a member of said group is a big scalar factor in the percentage “trigger point.” For some people, it means there is no trigger point at all - they will invoke No True Scotsman all the way until they are the last person standing.

I also assume that the representative role of the people acting badly is important. If the group has offered the person as representative of their values, and that person does something bad, does that count as a single strike against the group, or is it weighted? If so, by how much? Etc.

I admire your efforts to pin down variables in the “reputation equation” but it seems like there are so many it would be a difficult task. The things that affect and build a person’s perception are extremely diverse between individuals.

It seems to be a good starting point to determine from which perspective you are attempting to test the effect of reputation. Is it a member of the group? An opponent? A neutral party? Media person? How do they receive information? Who do they trust?

Here are some articles from physorg.com that might assist:

physorg.com - Negativity is contagious, study finds
physorg.com - Physicists model how we form opinions
phsyorg.com - Study: Believers’ inferences about God’s beliefs are uniquely egocentric
physorg.com - Trust your gut? Study explores religion, morality and trust in authority
physorg.com - Political views may skew perception of skin tone, new study finds
physorg.com - Politicians can use fear to manipulate the public
physorg.com - Psychologists study perception of mind
physorg.com - Believing is seeing, when it comes to emotions
physorg.com - Popular opinion not always so popular

There is lots more content available but that’s a nice sampling.