= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sixes_and_sevens comments on Relative and Absolute Benefit - 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 (14)
By curious coincidence I've been reading about positional goods elsewhere this week, and thinking along similar lines.
Are there any positional goods that aren't reasonably well-captured as signalling? There are various conditions that need to be in place in order for a signal to be of value, so if positional goods are principally a case of signalling, such conditions could offer some indication as to whether an intervention provides positional or intrinsic value.
ETA: I've just had a flip through the Wikipedia article for positional goods, and the "see also" section includes a link to Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There is no explanation on the talk page.
Depends on whether you count signaling to yourself as signaling.
There are cases of rich people buying stolen art (and other collectables) that they would never be able to publicly admit owning. But presumably the ownership of that rare and hidden art piece warms the cockles of their hearts...
Can't they show off their stolen goods to particular other people, in confidence, indicating something like "I am so, rich and ruthless that I have this amazing piece of stolen artwork, and I trust you enough to let you in on this secret even though you could destroy me with it"?
That's an interesting case. I can readily appreciate the idea of secretly owning a great work of art for my own private consumption, but that seems to have a fair amount of intrinsic value as well.
Consider the "take $1 from each of 10k people at random and give it all to another person chosen at random" example. The benefit there seems to be relative/positional but it's not a case of signaling.
The good in question is presumably money in this case, and I can see an (abstruse) argument for money-as-signalling.
Then substitute something directly useful.
While I'm not in a position to iron this out right now, this line of reasoning suggests any good is a positional good if it's redistributed, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't fly.
Agreed.