FAWS comments on How to Save the World - Less Wrong

73 Post author: Louie 01 December 2010 05:17PM

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

Comments (135)

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

Comment author: FAWS 02 December 2010 01:20:44AM *  2 points [-]

At this point, when you start discussing "positive/negative respect", I'd need to ask what that means in even more detail. What defines the "zero point", why would you have a total order ("levels"), why is this an interesting concept. Again, I see the affect, the surface promise of meaning, but not any straightforward way of discerning what's actually meant.

One possible definition of a zero point would be signaling (or being perceived to signal) neither a raising nor a lowering of the status of the person in question. So the imperative could be reformulated as "don't make moves to lower other people's status in interactions with them".

Comment author: wedrifid 02 December 2010 01:34:05AM *  2 points [-]

One possible definition of a zero point would be signaling (or being perceived to signal) neither a raising nor a lowering of the status of the person in question.

(It isn't your imperative but...) High status people will often take that as disrespectful.

Comment author: FAWS 02 December 2010 01:51:44AM *  0 points [-]

I understand treating higher status people like you would treat equal status people as signaling a lowering of their status so I think that's already taken into account.

Comment author: wedrifid 02 December 2010 02:36:38AM *  3 points [-]

I understand treating higher status people like you would treat equal status people as signaling a lowering of their status so I think that's already taken into account.

Not necessarily. Status is transactional and dynamic. High status people (of a certain kind) demand a constant stream of 'status raising' behaviors in the same way governments demand taxes.