Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We moderns are status-drunk

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#11

Post by onion2k »

lmm wrote: post #6

The idea that higher-status people would be more status-chasing seems dubious. In the evolutionary environment there would have been diminishing returns to status, and in any environment social climbers are noticeably lower status than those with real "old money" status.

The children of "old money" families are exactly the ones who are "Instagram famous" or "TikTok stars" on social media, or funding their own startups, or working in 'elite' art galleries and auction houses for low wages, or doing a long series of unpaid internships are top companies. Those things are often status seeking activities. Being born in to a high-status family drives you to maintain that status, and often gives you the resources necessary to circumvent the usual grind of getting to the top. That doesn't mean there aren't low-status people working their way up as well.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#12

Post by kqr »

acituan wrote: post #9
lmm wrote: post #6

The idea that higher-status people would be more status-chasing seems dubious. In the evolutionary environment there would have been diminishing returns to status, and in any environment social climbers are noticeably lower status than those with real "old money" status.

Exactly this. Status requires keeping track of people’s standing, but we can’t naturally do that for numbers greater than Dunbar’s. There comes in play the prosthetic status through indirect signals and symbols, from the feathers on a tribe leader’s hat to follower counts on social media. Unfortunately since status is also a comparative good (it matters having more status than the other) the virtual competition space…

> Status requires keeping track of people’s standing, but we can’t naturally do that for numbers greater than Dunbar’s.

Status isn't symmetric: a local Lord can be a high status person in the eyes of more than Dunbar's number of peasants, because he doesn't need to care much about their status (he has advisors on payroll for that.) Obviously, he's in all their Dunbar-sized circles.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#13

Post by ElViajero »

> evolution had humans use their absolute income/wealth to judge their relative status

This is false thru history. A noble man could be higher status than a rich merchant, to not talk about race.

The article gets what could be some reasonable conclusion from wrong data. It seems that the author started from an opinion, and then build a case around it.

> low level workers are often well advised to “keep *their* head down”, and just do their job.

> *we* all tend to rise in status when we seem to influence the behavior of others, but fall when lower status others seem to influence us.

Also, from the article I have an strong feeling that the author thinks of himself as high-status.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#14

Post by Animats »

Hm. It's an interesting conjecture, but needs more backing.

From the article: "In most societies, investments in fertility take time and time and energy away from investments in status. Yes fertility confers some status, but in our world not as much. As people get rich, they are tempted to invest less in immediate fertility in order to gain in status"

Maybe, but fertility has declined in developed countries for poor people as well as rich people.

The article suffers from having one good idea and then trying to bash too much to fit it.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#16

Post by tgv »

> My key hypothesis is this: evolution had humans use their absolute income/wealth to judge their relative status.

Then fails to operationalize it. What's absolute wealth? Does someone in Venezuela think his status is high because his income is 400k/month?

And the writer also fails to explain how our wealth perception would actually work or how evolution would cause it.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#17

Post by amelius »

drewcoo wrote: post #2

We're a social species. We are constantly scrutinizing one another. The author's thesis seems overly baroque: "evolution had humans use their absolute income/wealth to judge their relative status." And that's not considering that evolution didn't have a damned thing to do with income even though heredity does have to do with taxes.

Also status is highly context dependent. For example, a person can feel high status at work, but when visiting e.g. some physics conference can suddenly feel very low status. And no amount of money would help.

Re: We moderns are status-drunk

#19

Post by Juliate »

onion2k wrote: post #11
lmm wrote: post #6

The idea that higher-status people would be more status-chasing seems dubious. In the evolutionary environment there would have been diminishing returns to status, and in any environment social climbers are noticeably lower status than those with real "old money" status.

The children of "old money" families are exactly the ones who are "Instagram famous" or "TikTok stars" on social media, or funding their own startups, or working in 'elite' art galleries and auction houses for low wages, or doing a long series of unpaid internships are top companies. Those things are often status seeking activities. Being born in to a high-status family drives you to maintain that status, and often g…

I see many more "old money/high status" families that keep it quiet, finding stable/calm positions to keep on doing what they do, rather than seeking the riskiest famous lifestyles.

High status != high maintenance neither high visibility.

Edit to add: this is exactly the mistake that tabloids & people magazine do, and that social networks reproduce in the mind of people. Actual status, in the mid/long term relates to what you do/contribute for yourself or to society, not what you look like/say/think. In that regard fame != status.

For anything that goes to the headlines, there is considerably much more that happens under the radar, not necessarily because it does not know how to advertise itself, but because it does not want to advertise itself as that would be a distraction.

This is the same disconnect which, in France at least, makes no distinction between nobility, bourgeoisie and wealth, when those 3 concepts have evolved and are only overlapping in specific cases.

Post reply on HN