= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread August 31 - September 6 - 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 (326)
I don't know and neither do you. I think different people would conjure different images.
And status is (at least) a two-variable function: you think that a hip-hop mogul is a "lower-status class of rich", presumably lower than a Boston brahmin -- or, more generically, a rich New England WASP with lineage stretching to the Mayflower or thereabouts -- but that's not a universal. In some sub-cultures it is lower, in some sub-cultures it is higher.
Not only do I know, the vast majority of people know; it is this shared knowledge which makes status signaling possible in the first place.
And sure. And the rich New England WASP and hip-hop mogul are both lower-status than almost anybody at a convention of physicists. And at an imaginary convention of johns, the guy who buys thirty is the highest status. That's not the context which matters for the purpose of law and advocacy, however.
You are confused between being sufficiently socially clueful to understand status signaling and having the same mental imagery in response to a short description.
But I'm not quite sure what are we arguing about :-) Is there any falsifiable notion in play?