You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

IlyaShpitser comments on Open thread, Feb. 9 - Feb. 15, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: MrMind 09 February 2015 09:12AM

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

Comments (321)

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

Comment author: Anders_H 15 February 2015 08:21:02PM 0 points [-]

I recently re-read some old Less Wrong posts on status. It struck me that none of them really capture what I mean by the word.

I have been wondering if it makes sense to operationalize status as a measure of the extent to which other individuals have a rational self-interest in cooperating with you. Specifically, if you want to know the status of an individual, you estimate the probability that an arbitrarily chosen member of the group will get higher utility from cooperating than defecting in a two-player game.

I have been thinking about writing a full post on this. Before I start writing, does anyone have any thoughts on whether this definition has been proposed before, and on whether it captures your intuition behind what “status” is? Or any ideas about which aspects of this definition you would like to see discussed in a write-up?

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 18 February 2015 02:45:00PM 0 points [-]

My view: status is what social species organizing along feudal lines feels like from the inside. I think your definition does not capture the dominance/submission or perhaps vassal/liege aspect of status.