= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on The many faces of status - 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 (107)
I'll be pretty disappointed if our community accepts the idea that humiliating other people has less to do with status than comparing Pokemon collections. Which situation makes you more conscious of status: when your Pokemon collection is smaller than Bob's, or when Bob beats you up and takes your girlfriend? To really feel the concept, you have to be close to the monkey life.
This is true, but status still isn't about who can beat up who.
In particular, the fact that armies are typically controlled by older men (in rare situations, by older women, and in one unique situation (Joan of Arc) a young woman) implies that status among humans isn't about who can personally beat up who.
Football players take orders from managers and team owners.
That sounds like an allusion to dominance hierarchy theory, which my informal survey suggests is a muddle. Do you have pointers to solid, recent research on dominance hierarchy theory that could plausibly apply to humans?
People do sometimes react strongly to things we think weird, like not having the bigger Pokemon collection.
Well, there's anecdotes.