Desrtopa comments on Things you are supposed to like - Less Wrong

68 Post author: PhilGoetz 22 October 2011 02:04AM

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

Comments (367)

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

Comment author: Desrtopa 01 November 2011 01:07:02PM 1 point [-]

There is nothing "bureaucratic" about what you're talking about. Rich people like the art they support. It is not just about status. Or else it wouldn't matter what kind of organization they donate to, but that's not true. Many rich people care about status but don't support the arts at all.

It doesn't follow that because not all rich people who care about status support the arts, support of the arts by rich people is not just about status. Not everyone takes every possible action in support of their goals, indeed, for something like status, with so many avenues of pursuit, it's unlikely that anyone does. I'd be willing to bet that more rich people care about status than give to charity as well.

I don't doubt that there are rich people who care strongly about the arts. There are certainly non-rich people who do, and I don't think richness would filter very strongly for people who don't care about the arts. But I think you underestimate the importance of status signalling; being seen to be heavily involved in a cause is a stronger status signal than being seen to merely donate.

Comment author: DoubleReed 01 November 2011 01:19:45PM *  2 points [-]

I'm not saying that they aren't status-signaling, but I would argue that it isn't just status-signaling and tax-deductions.

After all, because there are so many avenues of pursuit, there must be some way for people to decide which to take. I mean if there's a contemporary art gallery I'm bored of, and an impressionist art gallery I like, I wouldn't donate to the contemporary art gallery because of status. I would donate to whichever I like the most. Both of them give me status.