pwno comments on The strongest status signals - Less Wrong

-1 Post author: pwno 06 March 2010 08:13AM

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

Comments (46)

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

Comment author: pwno 06 March 2010 11:19:23PM *  0 points [-]

Do you mean:

So you no longer believe that reactivity in an interaction is "The strongest status signals"?

If that's the question, then no. Whether or not the reactive move of talking to the citizens ultimately led to Obama's rise in status is not relevant. The citizens being reactive by liking him more is the indicator that his status is raised, not him chatting with them.

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 March 2010 11:47:27PM 2 points [-]

No, I meant what I said. In case it was too subtle, I was pointing out that you are shifting the goal posts, quietly backing off from your original strong claim as if you had never made it.

Your concept of "reactivity" seems about as useful as phlogiston. It can explain anything in retrospect. "The citizens being reactive by liking him" is nearly defining reactivity as assigning status to, weakly cloaked by the intermediary of "liking him". Yes, assignment of status is a strong indicator of assignment of status. But that is a tautology, not a useful theory about the particular world we live in.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 March 2010 02:38:14AM 1 point [-]

Your concept of "reactivity" seems about as useful as phlogiston. It can explain anything in retrospect.

It is misuse of the concept that seems to be the problem here more so than the concept itself. I'm not sure about 'strongest' but being nonreactive, particularly not making reactions that are extreme or reveal emotion, is an obvious status signal. As a concept it may be somewhat clearer than the related 'insecure' label that is often used as both a description and an attack.

Comment author: JGWeissman 07 March 2010 02:45:55AM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure about 'strongest'

This is really a large part of my point. I think the misuse of the concept is the result of trying to prove that it is stronger than it actually is. I agree that, if defined more clearly, there may be status signals associated with reactivity, but these would not, in general, be strong than other types of status signals.