Kaj_Sotala comments on Our House, My Rules - Less Wrong

36 Post author: David_J_Balan 02 November 2009 12:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (229)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 November 2009 01:56:47PM 10 points [-]

I think part of the problem is that the term "low status" is too laden with multiple meanings. Having low status might mean that you need to obey your superiors, OR it might mean your superiors consider you expendable, OR it might mean both.

I'm not very familiar with Chinese culture, but I could imagine a situation that fits your description but where children aren't actually of a lower status in the sense implied in the original post. If children are highly valued and their parents sacrifice a lot for them, then it makes sense to assume that children are expected to be respectful and obedient in return. If somebody's making a lot of sacrifices for you, then it's only proper that you show them respect for it and aren't too bothersome. That can be read to mean that you're of a roughly equal status, as you are participating in a fair exchange - be respectful and obedient, and the others will benefit you in return.

Comment author: Emile 02 November 2009 02:22:12PM 2 points [-]

Indeed, I had a problem with the fact that he meaning of "low status" is fuzzy (partly because we rarely speak of such things openly). Your phrasing clears things up, thanks.

I'd say that there are many kinds of relationships between people (employee, customer, parent, friend, lover, co-worker, ...), and we are hard-wired to pay attention to how the relationship reflects on the relative status of those involved.

But the relationships where one side seems "fundamentally worth less" than the other are just a subset of status relationships. So the idea that "considering children as lower-status implies that they are fundamentally woth less" looks wrong to me.