xamdam comments on The red paperclip theory of status - Less Wrong

41 Post author: Morendil 12 July 2010 11:08PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (22)
Tags: status

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: xamdam 13 July 2010 04:40:23PM *  0 points [-]

I think you guys have put together an interesting and potentially very useful redefinition of status.

Take this for example:

Johnstone describes this as lowering your own status in order to defend yourself, which would make no sense if we had a theory where status was simply the ability to influence someone. You can't influence someone by reducing your ability to influence them

Yes, the letter-snooper IS lowering his status, even though he is gaining a temporary advantage of not being berated by triggering guilt of this one person. An observer looking at this would have a low opinion of the snooper loosing his dignity, and he would have less status-induced influence thereafter.

I think status is much closer to dominance in common usage.

I would suggest using another word(combination) for what you're describing.

Comment author: Blueberry 13 July 2010 05:55:20PM 2 points [-]

Yes, the letter-snooper IS lowering his status, even though he is gaining a temporary advantage of not being berated by triggering guild of this one person. An observer looking at this would have a low opinion of the snooper loosing his dignity, and he would have less status-induced influence thereafter.

Yes, but he's lowering his status (general-purpose influence) for the particular purpose of achieving a specific outcome. The point is that he's trading it for something else. What you say is in agreement with this article.

Comment author: xamdam 14 July 2010 03:33:19PM 0 points [-]

I think based on the

In brief: status is a measure of general purpose optimization power in complex social domains

the authors would claim that the person "increased" or "used" their status in this transaction, but I would say they lowered it in common usage of the term, including yours

Yes, but he's lowering his status

hence I would claim this is a redefinition of the term.

I am only semantics here, but I feel it's important because using the term in an uncommon manner will lead to confusion.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit