I think I’m more with Rao than Lewis here. Much like the discussions of https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/simulacrum-levels, there’s a question of “do you believe your level is correct”, or “do you include multiple levels in your (private) models, even as you present deceptive/incomplete public arguments”. As both of them acknowledge, there IS value in being in inner circles. Making partner pays more. Being church deacon gives you more respect and insulates you a little from accusations of wrongdoing. Rising in the ranks of Freemasonry gives you access to trust, contacts, and maybe even actual knowledge. There’s a reason humans seem hardcoded to notice and seek status—it matters!
We live in a world filled mostly with people who are less rational and more passionate and implicit-decision-makers than most participants on LW. It’s an error not to acknowledge this, as much as it is an error to believe that there’s an objective “truth” behind these social constructs.
Seems to me like many such benefits are illusory for reasons Zvi alludes to in the Moral Mazes sequence; they are purchased at the price of losing the orientation that permits economic rationality and having interests.
The benefits may not be worth it for a given individual to seek membership in a given ring, but at least some of them are NOT illusory. Also, I don’t agree that one gives up one’s interests or loses economic rationality in seeking to join some inner rings.
In fact, I suspect there’s a fair bit of variance in the costs to join, making this just another case of signaling—showing that you can afford to join an inner ring indicates that you’re either quite powerful and can afford it, or that you’re fairly aligned with the ring and it doesn’t cost you much.
I think I’m more with Rao than Lewis here. Much like the discussions of https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/simulacrum-levels, there’s a question of “do you believe your level is correct”, or “do you include multiple levels in your (private) models, even as you present deceptive/incomplete public arguments”. As both of them acknowledge, there IS value in being in inner circles. Making partner pays more. Being church deacon gives you more respect and insulates you a little from accusations of wrongdoing. Rising in the ranks of Freemasonry gives you access to trust, contacts, and maybe even actual knowledge. There’s a reason humans seem hardcoded to notice and seek status—it matters!
We live in a world filled mostly with people who are less rational and more passionate and implicit-decision-makers than most participants on LW. It’s an error not to acknowledge this, as much as it is an error to believe that there’s an objective “truth” behind these social constructs.
Seems to me like many such benefits are illusory for reasons Zvi alludes to in the Moral Mazes sequence; they are purchased at the price of losing the orientation that permits economic rationality and having interests.
The benefits may not be worth it for a given individual to seek membership in a given ring, but at least some of them are NOT illusory. Also, I don’t agree that one gives up one’s interests or loses economic rationality in seeking to join some inner rings.
In fact, I suspect there’s a fair bit of variance in the costs to join, making this just another case of signaling—showing that you can afford to join an inner ring indicates that you’re either quite powerful and can afford it, or that you’re fairly aligned with the ring and it doesn’t cost you much.