51–60 of 75 posts
This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health. Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It is not impossible to imagine society so conscious of its power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury available to it, – that of letting its malefactors go unpunished. ‘What do I care about my parasites’, it could say, ‘let them live and flourish: I am strong enough for all that!’ . . . Justice, which began by saying ‘Everything can be paid off, everything must be paid off ’, ends by turning a blind eye an…
He's talking about Basic Income y'all.
This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health. Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.
I commented on this in a recent thread and was crucified for being a self centered sociopath... better luck to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give a brief summary of the points he makes about social status? I'm curious but my reading backlog is already out of hand.
Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space. I'd recommend moving it to the top of your reading list; it's one of those incredible books that i get something new out of every time I read it. It goes deep into human in…
I hope this knowledge (regardless of whether it's true) does not spread - I'm sure there would be plenty of people who will try to "hack the system" and will act according to this list, which would be insufferable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space. I'd recommend moving it to the top of your reading list; it's one of those incredible books that i get something new out of every time I read it. It goes deep into human in…
If you go from low to high most of it comes naturally. It's obliquely alluded to in pg's "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss"[0]. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space. I'd recommend moving it to the top of your reading list; it's one of those incredible books that i get something new out of every time I read it. It goes deep into human in…
> Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space. I hope this knowledge (regardless of whether it's true) does not spread - I'm sure there would be plenty of people who will try to "hack the system" and will act accordin…
And if you want to know how insufferable it's been, just ask any woman who's been in the dating scene in the past 10 years how they feel about 'negging'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secr...
This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health. Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.
We know there's a bunch of reasons why poor people are unhealthy - more smoking, more alcohol, worse food, less exercise, more dangerous jobs, less protection in those dangerous jobs, less exercise, less access to health treatment (even if it's free).
But this study:
> The findings, in Science, had nothing to do with the unhealthy behaviours that are more common in poorer groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I commented on this in a recent thread and was crucified for being a self centered sociopath... better luck to you.
Heh. I think think the sociopathic conclusion would be to claw one's way to the top no matter what. The compassionate conclusion would be to reduce inequality, so all benefit.
But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.
Logical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations. In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.
Social status in humans and other animals is a large part genetic. This is take as fact by many people. If you believe it's not you really need proof.
The original OP didn't need to provide proof as they took it as a given and was talking a different interesting premise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh. I think think the sociopathic conclusion would be to claw one's way to the top no matter what. The compassionate conclusion would be to reduce inequality, so all benefit.
Unless you can reduce inequality to zero - Harrison Bergeron style [1] - you can't fix this by reducing inequality. It's an ironclad law of mathematics that 20% of the population will be part of the bottom fifth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron