Living for a few years in an area that had a somewhat regular beggar population, I think the psychology of begging can't go unexamined. There's more at play than just how much money you can get: prominently the dislike of doing "actual work" and the already mentioned suffering of the beggar stigma. From my experience the sort of people who beg are not so much the people who can't get any jobs (unless won't = can't, motivationally speaking), but people with low or uniquely valued enough self-esteem to suffer the stigma, and who would much rather sit on the street corner than do the 9 to 5 day in and day out. Unfortunately I don't have experimental data on this. Of course they're mixed in with the people who really can't get jobs, but giving to beggars for me at least factors in how much I want to reward people who have the above mentioned preferences.

I think the article makes a good point. But I also want to point out that practically all human communication involves status games and status transactions. By status transactions I mean things like a person trying to raise or lower their own status or raise or lower the other person's status (or some other group's status). Of course, communication typically conveys other information too, but it almost always is accompanied with some sort of a status transaction.

The form in which these status messages are presented is so subtle and natural to majority of humans [1] (the exceptions being say autistic persons [2]) that it takes a little bit of work to get familiar with. Instead of looking at direct and explicit status messages, you need to look at some normal conversation from this perspective and observe the subtle ways these status transactions are conveyed.

It's much easier to observe status games in face-to-face conversations (when one is not one of the participants in the conversation), where you see the way people make eye contacts, gestures and use space, for example. Keeping the head completely still, for example, sends a very strong high-status signal. You can actually try that in practice. It typically changes the tone of your voice and the way you speak quite radically, especially if you're typically a low-status player. (But you must do this with someone's supervision, because if you're not used to changing the status you're playing, you'll think that you're still even though you're actually not.) Keeping your hand around your head and moving around sends the opposite, low-status, signal.

One typical example from conversation is the way people protect themselves beforehand with disclaimers like "Well, I'm not an expert on this, but ..." or "I'm not as smart as you are, but ..." or similar phrases. One can view that as useful information about the message, which is often true too, but the real purpose is to lower one's status beforehand so that you can't be attacked directly. You can do that by raising the other person's status or lowering your own.

I think most people (be they people who thrive in social interactions or not) refuse to accept this idea of ubiquitous status transactions when they are first introduced to this idea. But I think the refusal even more prevalent in communities where people are used to playing low status in most of their interactions. In fact, they often see themselves outside the status games alltogether and think they are somehow above those. But with only few exceptions, you're not outside at all. You might not be looking for social approval and social interaction as such, but when you do interact, it's always there. Furthermore, while you might generally be a low-status player, you might be playing high-status in your own context and in your own community.

What I've said here is not for trying to argue or prove that status transactions are part of most conversations. To me, it's already obvious and I'm not sure how (or if) I could convince anyone of this if they refuse to accept this idea. (Note that I'm not claiming that communication is just about status transactions.) I'm presenting this as a sort of a hook for someone who might be interested in finding out more.

Edit: I'm not trying to say it's some kind of magic that couldn't be (or hasn't been) studied rigorously and experimentally. But it's something that is rather hard to accept just as such.

The way I learned about this was by reading a book by Keith Johnstone called Impro - Improvisation and the Theatre. Status is a central topic of the book, because without learning how to recognize and comfortably play status games, you can't produce acting that seems natural to the audience. As such, it's not a book directly related to rationality, but for me it was quite an eye-opener. And while it certainly is mainly about improvisation and acting, it is really a good book even if you never intend to do either.

[1] This includes people who are aware of the ongoing status transactions in the communication, by the way.

[2] I don't think status transactions are completely oblivious to autistic people, but I don't think they are quite as natural to them either. In a way, an autistic person might often notice status transactions better, but they carry a lot less significance to such a person and might seem just ridiculous.

partially because if I was a female rationalist it would be offensive to me that Eliezer assumes I would respond differently to the same comment simply because of the gender of the commenter. Just like it would be offensive to me as a black person if the LW community thought that I would only respond positively to comments made by another black person.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with men making generalizations about women, nothing wrong with whites making generalizations about blacks or vice versa. allowing overly sensitive members of minority groups to dictate behavior is a waste of time.

"But let a female rationalist be the one to say it."

this really bothers me.