= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
handoflixue comments on What if "status" IS a terminal value for most people? - 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 (111)
My first reaction is "people DO that?"
I can evaluate status in a very crude sense, but the algorithm seems to be a combination of HasAuthority and FriendsWithAuthority. So Co-Worker A, who is friends with the CEO, can probably make higher-status requests than I can. And my boss can obviously do that. But the idea that Co-Worker A could have more status than my boss is a concept I can't evaluate; as far as I can tell it just can't be true.
I think so? I mean, if status can be high or low, that does imply a ranking. I don't know how detailed they get about it, but I think the idea is to have a hierarchy when you're finished.
I don't even have that. I just do whatever makes sense for the situation and then when people behave in a way that makes what I'm doing dysfunctional, I go "What the heck?" Then, I look at it in hindsight and go "Oh, yeah. Status games exist. Right."
This is probably not good, but considering my level of motivation, it's going to take a while for me to learn to think of these things in advance...
I have an unfortunate tendency to also run head-long in to "right, the reason this isn't working is that I don't have sufficient status to make that request", and then being very puzzled. I'd been slowly mapping this out beforehand, but this revelation was apparently a useful insight in to doing a quick, fairly heavy update. Hopefully in the future I will be a lot more aware of why things are failing, even if I'm not otherwise improving :)