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.

Gram_Stone comments on Status - is it what we think it is? - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 30 March 2015 09:37PM

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

Comments (40)

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

Comment author: Gram_Stone 01 April 2015 04:23:37AM 0 points [-]

You might explicitly point out that status is in the mind. Perhaps in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, everyone's maps of the group and hierarchy converged, but now with n ~= 7 billion, they diverge wildly. It's not unlike how hearts, lungs, and brains ceasing to function were once concurrent events, and now they are not and we often feel confused. There have been situations where I thought I was low status and turned out to be high status, and vice versa. What qualities correlate with status differ between individuals, but we do all seem to have an internal Status-O-Meter that causes us to make the single-variable-dependence error in the first place. Figuring out how to affect that meter as generally as possible and figuring out whether or not such efforts are necessarily zero-sum does seem useful.

I agree with those who feel as though we're lumping a lot into one word. I like shminux's description below of status as influence. Maybe you could define a high-status person as a person who makes all of the local maps converge on a map with the influencer at a high place in the hierarchy.