= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The strongest status signals - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (46)
The actual strongest status signal? My hunch is:
Being a male whose harem includes all of the most attractive females in the tribe.
It seems our discussions of status are doomed to routinely skirt the border of PUA territory. And yet we may not enter.
Enter to whatever extent it is relevant. I don't expect you will meet any objections, basically because a lot of the discussions we have here, particularly on status, personal development (including akrasia) and morality are already in that territory and they seem to flow smoothly.
Good one. But stronger:
Being a female whose harem includes all of the most attractive males in the tribe.
What females have a harem?
Formidable, high status females who are capable of inverting typical social expectations.
And their names would be _______?
I never meant to claim that this had actually happened, but that if it ever does happen, it would be a strong signal of status, in part because it doesn't usually happen.
But, to answer you question: Cleopatra. (I am not really sure from the article how much was concurrent, but for other examples, see the article on polyandry.)
If we're going to bring up Cleopatra- Other people worship you as a demi-god. seems like a pretty good gender-neutral status indicator.
I knew I had a good reason for merely claiming I was presenting a stronger signal, not the strongest.
Interesting. I find that one harder to place on the scale since it doesn't resolve to an obvious unique social dynamic. It is certainly high but just how high would depend which rather artificial mechanism was used to enforce it. Female social politics are rather a lot different to males ones and that would be an extreme case. My impression is that the female in question would have a lower status differential to the other females and be more readily overthrown than the male would. (Even more) constant vigilance would be required to maintain dominance.