= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
handoflixue comments on What if "status" IS a terminal value for most people? - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
As a kid, my parents gave me a TON of trouble for exhibiting routine low-status behaviour (chewing on my shirt, refusing to wear a shirt, wearing stained shirts, showering once or twice a week, getting all sorts of dirty, eating food with the wrong fork...), and my mom specifically taught me a fair amount of etiquette (correct fork, how to set a table for a 3-course meal, so on)
So, I'm anecdotally evidence against your theory :)
I upvoted it because the minimum we'd get without running a study would be anecdotal evidence.
I'm not sure that there is a close link between "status" and "behaving." Most of the kids I knew who I would call "status-seeking" were not particularly well behaved: often the opposite. Most of the things you are talking about seem to fall into "good behavior" rather than "status."
Additionally... well, we'd probably need to track a whole lot of factors to figure out which ones, based on your environment, would be selected for. And currently, I have no theory as to which timeframes would be the most important to look at, which would make such a search more difficult.
There may be important differences between avoiding low status and seeking high status.
Definitely. These are the sorts of things that would need to be evaluated if my very rough sketch were to be turned into an actual theory of values.
Good behaviour on your part would get your parents higher status with their peers, bad behaviour (for certain values of 'bad') would get you higher status with your peers.