Who wants to play the status game? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#201

Post by xsmasher » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #110

kerkeslager wrote: post #75

> It is much easier to mock others for engaging in the Importance Game and the Leveling Game than to acknowledge one is doing it. And it's critical to realize: mocking others for engaging in the Importance Game and the Leveling Game is just a way of engaging in the Importance Game. This is an even stranger game than Nuclear War: it sometimes seems that the only winning move is not to play, but not to play isn't reall…

> And it's critical to realize: mocking others for engaging in the Importance Game and the Leveling Game is just a way of engaging in the Importance Game. I grew up in Los Angeles and now live in Portland, OR. People in LA play the status game rather brazenly and are roundly mocked for it. But the exact same game is played by everyone doing the mocking here in Portland. Except, instead of buying luxury automobiles an…

When people are locked out of one ladder, they may latch onto another ladder where they can have more success; you can opt into the vegan ladder, zero waste ladder, hippie queen ladder, gangster ladder, slacker ladder, redneck ladder, ad infinitum.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#202

Post by ibeckermayer » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #75

> It is much easier to mock others for engaging in the Importance Game and the Leveling Game than to acknowledge one is doing it. And it's critical to realize: mocking others for engaging in the Importance Game and the Leveling Game is just a way of engaging in the Importance Game. This is an even stranger game than Nuclear War: it sometimes seems that the only winning move is not to play, but not to play isn't reall…

You don’t have a choice but to play, however you do have a choice about which games to play. The only justified game is that of sincere moral virtue; what that means is a deep philosophical issue.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#203

Post by m463 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 1:30 AM UTC

afpx wrote: post #19

Another "more advanced game" is the collaboration game. In this game, the players determine their common ground. The players evaluate each other and think, "Hey this person seems to be good at X and knows a lot about Y. I know a lot about Z. Maybe we can join forces." They then identify common goals that they can work on together. I don't know about most people, but I'm definitely more interested in playing the colla…

I think you have to play the status game first (even if you don't realize you're doing it).

If you meet a stranger, you have to figure out if they are crazy/dangerous before proceeding to collaboration.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#204

Post by therealdrag0 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 3:54 AM UTC

noelwelsh wrote: post #112

fma wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask them about their kids and just let them do the talking. A natural conversation usually flows from there.

I'm agreed that talking about kids is a good way to get conversations started with strangers (or pets, if not kids). In this case we're relatively new to the area but I know most people's backgrounds now. It's more a case of someone initiating conversation with a casual "what have you been up to?" to which I can respond, say, "Oh, just got back from a week at $MEGACORP", which might taken as a status play but at leas…

A good move is to leave out the $CORP and just say "Got back from a week of traveling for work." It's obvious you're leaving out information; and it sorta nods to your choice not to boast (play status game), and instead lets them ask follow up questions if they are interested.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#205

Post by haecceity » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

punkbrwstr wrote: post #66

Which game is it where you drop the word "otiose" in the second paragraph?

It's the "I read a lot of books and I want people to know" game.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#206

Post by funnybeam » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:38 AM UTC

Evgeniuz wrote: post #194

eindiran wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a fairly large number of collaborative board games: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2023/cooperative... Some interesting ones: * Gloomhaven * Spirit Island * Pandemic (or any of the other games in the series) * Codenames Duet * Arkham Horror (or any of the other games in the series) * Mysterium

Kind of a smaller ones, but "Hanabi" and "Grizzled" are also nice. The good thing in these two games is they're not feeling like group solitaire (and I love a good game of Spirit Island, but point stands), you actually have to cooperate with another people, you can't win them by yourself.

And then there is Diplomacy, where you have to cooperate with everyone to get anywhere - right until you stab them in the back

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#207

Post by funnybeam » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:42 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #203

afpx wrote: post #19

Another "more advanced game" is the collaboration game. In this game, the players determine their common ground. The players evaluate each other and think, "Hey this person seems to be good at X and knows a lot about Y. I know a lot about Z. Maybe we can join forces." They then identify common goals that they can work on together. I don't know about most people, but I'm definitely more interested in playing the colla…

I think you have to play the status game first (even if you don't realize you're doing it). If you meet a stranger, you have to figure out if they are crazy/dangerous before proceeding to collaboration.

That’s playing the Trust Game. People often see the Status Game as a proxy for the trust game which is a big mistake

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#208

Post by humansvsrobots » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:53 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #164

yboris wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: jonathanstrange's reply to my reply Thanks for more comments. You're right you can re-scale things to be (A) 30 minutes VS 10 years (Z) ... at which point, why would anyone prefer A > Z ??? Part of the argument relies on this very vague definition of the eventual state of things. Temkin talks about an experience "just above 'barely worth living'" (Life-Z-1) ... and that is _so_ vague, and it means something _so_…

I can certainly see a case. Let's make it about money. A is a single payment of $10,000. B is two monthly payments of $5250. Or, in other words, a 5% improvement over A in total payments. C is three monthly payments of $3675. Again, 5% better than B in sum. I could completely see someone doing a pairwise comparison between A and B, and picking B for the 5% increase, because the time difference is not that important.…

If a person is wealthy and doesn't need to spend that amount during the entire duration of Z, since they have other wealth to spend, they would likely choose Z for the higher return over the same time period.

So only a relative poverty would encourage the person to choose A.

Assuming they have unlimited life span. If not and their lifespan is uncertain, then the value of Z is reduced by the chance of not surviving long enough to profit from it.

If they can invest A and get a higher return than waiting for Z, then A is a more profitable choice.

Re: Who wants to play the status game?

#209

Post by justforyou » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 4:50 PM UTC

overcast wrote: post #100

willemlabu wrote: post #63

I once attended a talk by a man who was head of a creative marketing agency. He also had a side gig of being a presentation consultant. I forget his name and agency, but I don't think I could forget what he said. He would lead his company's pitches to new clients, and would turn up to the presentation wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and flip flops; tattoos all over his arms and neck, and thereby set the expectations of th…

I would not suggest this if your career/love life/opportunity depends on it.

Fortune favors the bold.