I think the standard 2-dimensional dominance/prestige model of social status (which can be simplified into just prestige here since dominance mostly doesn’t apply to LW) has a lot going for it, and balances well between complexity and realism/explanatory power. But I would be happy to consider a more complex and realistic model if the situation calls for it (i.e., the simpler model misses something important in the current situation). Can you explain more what you think it’s missing here, if anything? (I did skim your post but nothing jumped out at me as adding a lot of value here.)
I buy that prestige is a meaningful and common first PCA dimension in communities where it’s already common, which does seem likely to be most groups. I don’t mean to convey anything beyond ongoing irritation at people assuming the mental parts are fundamentally unable to be reconfigured for something less trapped than a type that collapses to a single global ordering. One basic change would be having a per-relationship personal rating of “your prestige with me”, or even ” your prestige with me on a topic”. But also, I find it frustrating that a single status dimension is still common parlance when prestige/dominance is available. I’m not saying anything immediately relevant, I’m complaining that you said people are always making status calculations, and that that seems oversimplified and overconfident. Moreover if you’re correct, I see it as a problem to be fixed.
But also, I find it frustrating that a single status dimension is still common parlance when prestige/dominance is available. I’m not saying anything immediately relevant, I’m complaining that you said people are always making status calculations, and that that seems oversimplified and overconfident.
I used “status” instead of “prestige/dominance” because it’s shorter and I think most people on LW already know the prestige/dominance model of status and will understand that I’m not referring to a scalar quantity by “status”. People use single words to refer to quantities that are more complex than scalars all the time. For example when I say “he’s really artistic” I obviously don’t mean to suggest that there’s just a single dimension of artistry.
To try to guess at why you made this complaint, maybe you’re thinking that a lot of people do have an over-simplified single-dimensional model of status, and by using “status” I’m feeding into or failing to help correct this mistake. If so, can you point to some clear evidence of such mistakes, i.e., beyond just people using the word “status”?
I think the standard 2-dimensional dominance/prestige model of social status (which can be simplified into just prestige here since dominance mostly doesn’t apply to LW) has a lot going for it, and balances well between complexity and realism/explanatory power. But I would be happy to consider a more complex and realistic model if the situation calls for it (i.e., the simpler model misses something important in the current situation). Can you explain more what you think it’s missing here, if anything? (I did skim your post but nothing jumped out at me as adding a lot of value here.)
I buy that prestige is a meaningful and common first PCA dimension in communities where it’s already common, which does seem likely to be most groups. I don’t mean to convey anything beyond ongoing irritation at people assuming the mental parts are fundamentally unable to be reconfigured for something less trapped than a type that collapses to a single global ordering. One basic change would be having a per-relationship personal rating of “your prestige with me”, or even ” your prestige with me on a topic”. But also, I find it frustrating that a single status dimension is still common parlance when prestige/dominance is available. I’m not saying anything immediately relevant, I’m complaining that you said people are always making status calculations, and that that seems oversimplified and overconfident. Moreover if you’re correct, I see it as a problem to be fixed.
I used “status” instead of “prestige/dominance” because it’s shorter and I think most people on LW already know the prestige/dominance model of status and will understand that I’m not referring to a scalar quantity by “status”. People use single words to refer to quantities that are more complex than scalars all the time. For example when I say “he’s really artistic” I obviously don’t mean to suggest that there’s just a single dimension of artistry.
To try to guess at why you made this complaint, maybe you’re thinking that a lot of people do have an over-simplified single-dimensional model of status, and by using “status” I’m feeding into or failing to help correct this mistake. If so, can you point to some clear evidence of such mistakes, i.e., beyond just people using the word “status”?
the latter seems right, I don’t have a handy link, but I’ll be on the lookout for concrete examples and come back to this, eta 2 weeks, / or * 2