= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier comments on Open Thread: September 2011 - LessWrong
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 (441)
We've been talking about intelligence for a long time too, but I haven't seen a good definition for it. Sometimes its better not to try to define things and just say "well here are some examples of things I mean when I say status".
I can actually see some ways in which my definition might be problematic (I'm not sure if it adequately explains, say, friends who deliberately choose to go to a more expensive restaurant of equivalent quality).
But regardless, I think the question "is status relative?" is a fairly important one, and if we are having disagreements about that, we need to figure out why.
A bit curious why this post in particular was downvoted.
I agree that understanding status is useful. I'm not sure arguing about whether status is relative or not is very useful. I get the sense that most people accept that status is often relative or has large relative component, but intuitions about how human brains work will obviously differ a great deal. I think discussion of empirical work on status is likely to be much more useful.
I think assumptions about status being relatively lead directly to harmful interactions - beliefs that you must put others down in order to raise yourself up, or that you must choose between high status or other forms of morality.
I agree that most of the work is empirical, but that starting with "status is obviously relative, by definition" is a more dangerous assumption than "status is not inherently relative, by definition," even if it did turn out that the most effective ways to gain status were relative. (It seems to me that, between the two statements, "status is obviously relative" is more guilty of arguing via definitions than "status isn't necessarily relative.")
Whenever I see a belief criticized for a reason other than it being wrong, I can't help but think that the reason was chosen as a fallback and the arguer would have preferred to criticize it as wrong, had he or she been able to.
Especially among rationalists/"rationalists"/aspiring rationalists/"aspiring rationalists".
Interesting moment of introspection - I've realized that I'm adopting an adversarial position and attempting to "win" this debate, and using words like "guilty" to describe the arguments of my adversaries.
a) isn't it ironic. Don'cha think?
b) Would you consider me a higher or lower status member of this forum if I were to successfully argue my point in neutral tone or an adversarial one?
This is how you cooperate, not (only) through denial. Defectors lose. Even in relative terms.
That isn't what "status is relative" is about at all.