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

Persuasion through status rather than argument

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 251 posts

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#151

Post by itronitron »

shannifin wrote: post #105

Is there a way to self-evaluate whether or not your belief is the product of social status preservation? If not, what good is it to recognize the possibility, save for accusing others of it?

If the person speaking is wearing glasses or has a British accent then odds are good that any beliefs you have based on what that person has said are a product of social status preservation.

You can correct for this bias by imagining that same argument being presented by Donnie Baker [0] and if you still find it compelling then it's probably a reasonable point that is being made. I swear to God it is.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhQDsKoMCz0

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#152

Post by quickthrower2 »

rsynnott wrote: post #68
cornholio wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those listed were well executed financial frauds. I don't think successful people are particularly more likely to fall for scams - they just have the necessary capital/disposable income and are targeted by more sophisticated scammers. I think the author thinks more along the lines of Steve Jobs trying to cure his cancer with herbal tea, Elon Musk sleep depriving himself into a twittering idiot, Scientology, NL…

I mean, define “well executed”. Theranos, in particular, it’s notable that very little of their money came from _conventional_ sources (traditional VCs, sovereign wealth funds etc). It was largely, essentially, _personal_ investment by stupid rich people; often via a family office, but ultimately at the direction of the stupid rich person. IIRC one attempt by Theranos to get investment from a real VC collapsed becaus…

As a "poor" person by Madoff investor standards, I am paranoid of any investment where I don't know what it is invested in. That said the other side are people who invested with the guy who bet against the CDS crap in 2008 (sorry forget his name), who I think were also in the "trust a guy with my money" camp. So I can see why people do it. But I would diversify, maybe max 10% in any one fund that is a black box, maybe max 40% in black boxes in total. Assuming you are rich - maybe 10% for most of us.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#153

Post by fasthands9 »

Animats wrote: post #149

> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…

I'm not sure the solution. The problem seems to be a less homogenous society with less homogeneous viewpoints, rather than society getting actually less accepting of speech.

It's pretty easy to speak your mind (both then and now) when your opinion is in the majority.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#154

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #149

> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…

[deleted]

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#155

Post by cdot2 »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #31

> It might seem intuitive to believe that people with less education are more manipulable. But research suggests this may not be true. > High-status people are more preoccupied with how others view them. Which means that educated and/or affluent people may be especially prone to peripheral, as opposed to central, methods of persuasion. There is a hidden assumtion in the above part. Did you spot it? It is that educate…

Everyone believes their ideology is based on reason and not determined by their sociotope. My sociotope just happens to be the most reasonable one.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#156

Post by lapcat »

Animats wrote: post #149

> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad?

The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#157

Post by patrick451 »

lapcat wrote: post #156
Animats wrote: post #149

> In the 1950s, at the height of McCarthyism, 13.4 percent of Americans reported that “felt less free to speak their mind than they used to.” In 1987, the figure had reached 20 percent. By 2019, 40 percent of Americans reported that they did not feel free to speak their minds. This isn’t a partisan issue, either. Gibson and Sutherland report that, “The percentage of Democrats who are worried about speaking their mind…

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.

Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#158

Post by lapcat »

patrick451 wrote: post #157
lapcat wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that it's scary. After all, casual racism and sexism used to be a lot more common in the past. Now people are called out and criticized on those. Is that bad? The other factor is the rise of internet social media, which didn't exist back then. When people spoke their mind, it wasn't broadcast publicly to the whole world, so there was less fear of backlash.

Yes. Just like sexuality, racisism and sexism are part of what it means to be human. They are all natural instincts. Suppressing them is leading to the same sort of dysfunction that sexual suppression lead to in the Victorian age. That said, in the same way it's not healthy for society to be full of sexual deviants, it's also not healthy for it to be full of flaming racists. Moderation in all things, but nothing wron…

> Moderation in all things, but nothing wrong with a little here and there.

Would you say the same about rape, violence, and murder? Those seem like "natural instincts". Nothing wrong with a little here and there?

I would dispute that racism and sexism are "just like" sexuality, and I would also dispute that all "natural instincts", you might call them animal instincts, ought to be accepted and encouraged. One of the great accomplishments of humanity is to rise above our animal instincts and become, at least temporarily, rational and enlightened.

Sex is necessary for the propagation of the species, and when done right, it's consensual to all parties and also pleasurable, harming nobody. Can you say the same about racism and sexism?

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#159

Post by akoboldfrying »

hasoleju wrote: post #53

A better title could maybe be: "Smart and successful people don't express their true opinion because they fear a loss of status" The author explains, that the more status people gained in their life, the more they try to stick to the common sense of opinions people of their status hold. This behavior really stabilizes the status quo. For me this also explains why the consequent climate change protests are mainly supp…

Mostly agree but I would argue that protesting climate change is the high-status norm for young people today.

Though we oldies may have forgotten, or disregard it as "not real", status amongst their peers is incredibly important to the average teenager.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#160

Post by carlosjobim »

habinero wrote: post #134
carlosjobim wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism as defined by Marx and as practiced by the Soviet Union, China, and the DDR. But you can expand to socialism in the widest sense if you like. Still a bad idea that attracts some very smart people.

I said your own words, not "as defined by" others. I've yet to meet anyone who throws around "communism" like that who uses it as anything but a vacuous memetic catchphrase, detached from any real understanding.

I'm not the father of communism, Marx is, and he defined it pretty clearly in the Communist manifesto, which is still well worth reading.

It's his definition that is interesting for intellectual discussion.

Post reply on HN