I think these status motivations/dynamics are active whether or not you consciously think of them, because your subconscious is already constantly making status calculations. It’s possible consciously framing things this way makes it even worse, “hurts your motivation to comment” even more, but it seems unavoidable if we want to explicitly discuss these dynamics. (Sometimes I do deliberately avoid bringing up status in a discussion due to such effects, but here the OP already talked about status a bunch, and it seems like an unavoidable issue anyway.)
status motivations/dynamics are active whether or not you consciously think of them
It’s more useful to frame this in terms of particular norms, because different contexts activate different norms. It’s possible to deliberatively cultivate or suppress specific norms in specific contexts (including those that take the form of status calculations, which is not all of them), shaping them in the long run rather than passively acknowledging their influence.
This is very indirect and so the feedback loops are terrible, it seems that usually you’d need to intervene at the background dynamics that would encourage/discourage the norms on their own (such as prevailing framings and terminology, making different actions or incentives more salient), not even intervening by encouraging/discouraging the norms directly.
I’m skeptical that it’s possible to use norms to suppress status calculations, and even more skeptical that it’s possible without huge cost/effort, beyond what typical LW members would be willing to pay. It’s hard for me to think of any groups or communities whose members have managed to suppress their status motivations/calculations. (It seems a lot more feasible/productive to exploit or redirect such motivations in various ways.) But if you have more to say about this, I’d be very curious to hear you out.
Not suppress status calculations of course, my point is about uses of being specific about particular norms that contribute to such status calculations (as well as norms that are not about status calculations). This should enable some agency in shaping incentives (by influencing specific norms according to their expected effects), rather than settling to cynically pointing out that status calculations are an immutable part of human nature, at least for most people. That is, the content of the status calculations is not immutable.
(It seems a lot more feasible/productive to exploit or redirect such motivations in various ways.)
Probably you are thinking about a particular application of norm-shaping that wouldn’t work, while I was responding to what I perceived as a framing suggesting a general dismissal of norm-shaping as a useful thing to consider. This parenthetical sure seems to thicken the plot. (Maybe you are somehow intending the same point, in a way I’m not seeing, while also being skeptical of me making the same point, meaning that you are not seeing that I’m making the same point, possibly because it wouldn’t be a good response to your own intended point that I’m misunderstanding...)
Social motivations seem unavoidable, but I don’t see why those social motivations would be unavoidably in terms of a single-dimensional “global status” score. Some of my earliest posts on lesswrong are my attempt to guess at plausible mechanisms of social motivation and I continue to not be convinced that this single dimensional status view is obligatory, rather than merely socially self-reinforcing.
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 these status motivations/dynamics are active whether or not you consciously think of them, because your subconscious is already constantly making status calculations. It’s possible consciously framing things this way makes it even worse, “hurts your motivation to comment” even more, but it seems unavoidable if we want to explicitly discuss these dynamics. (Sometimes I do deliberately avoid bringing up status in a discussion due to such effects, but here the OP already talked about status a bunch, and it seems like an unavoidable issue anyway.)
Making status calculations at all times is a choice you have the right to make, but in my opinion it’s a bad one.
It’s more useful to frame this in terms of particular norms, because different contexts activate different norms. It’s possible to deliberatively cultivate or suppress specific norms in specific contexts (including those that take the form of status calculations, which is not all of them), shaping them in the long run rather than passively acknowledging their influence.
This is very indirect and so the feedback loops are terrible, it seems that usually you’d need to intervene at the background dynamics that would encourage/discourage the norms on their own (such as prevailing framings and terminology, making different actions or incentives more salient), not even intervening by encouraging/discouraging the norms directly.
I’m skeptical that it’s possible to use norms to suppress status calculations, and even more skeptical that it’s possible without huge cost/effort, beyond what typical LW members would be willing to pay. It’s hard for me to think of any groups or communities whose members have managed to suppress their status motivations/calculations. (It seems a lot more feasible/productive to exploit or redirect such motivations in various ways.) But if you have more to say about this, I’d be very curious to hear you out.
Not suppress status calculations of course, my point is about uses of being specific about particular norms that contribute to such status calculations (as well as norms that are not about status calculations). This should enable some agency in shaping incentives (by influencing specific norms according to their expected effects), rather than settling to cynically pointing out that status calculations are an immutable part of human nature, at least for most people. That is, the content of the status calculations is not immutable.
Probably you are thinking about a particular application of norm-shaping that wouldn’t work, while I was responding to what I perceived as a framing suggesting a general dismissal of norm-shaping as a useful thing to consider. This parenthetical sure seems to thicken the plot. (Maybe you are somehow intending the same point, in a way I’m not seeing, while also being skeptical of me making the same point, meaning that you are not seeing that I’m making the same point, possibly because it wouldn’t be a good response to your own intended point that I’m misunderstanding...)
Ok, I think we’re not disagreeing, I just misunderstood your comment. Thanks for clarifying.
Social motivations seem unavoidable, but I don’t see why those social motivations would be unavoidably in terms of a single-dimensional “global status” score. Some of my earliest posts on lesswrong are my attempt to guess at plausible mechanisms of social motivation and I continue to not be convinced that this single dimensional status view is obligatory, rather than merely socially self-reinforcing.
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