wedrifid 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: 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.