Of course Johnstone isn’t making these things up out of thin air. But he developed that work for the stage, and what happens on stage is not reality, it is a simulation of reality. And a simulation intended, not to be faithfully realistic, but to tickle the audience, and I think that the idea that an audience wants to see an actually accurate picture of reality on the stage is one that does not exactly jibe with the general views held on LessWrong. (Try it on Overcoming Bias, and I’m sure the instant pattern-matching response will be “fiction is not about reality”.)
What you see on stage is symbols of reality, not copies of it. As such, it can be worth studying these things, and even practicing them on stage. Even on the stage of real life, as long as it’s with strangers you do not expect to see again. But if you imitate in real life the signs of status that a theatre director trains his actors to use as theatrical tools, and expect to produce status in reality, then, well, this is what you are doing:
In the lush days of manna from the Potomac a small town ran out of people who were in need of largess. All had jobs except the village half-wit. They finally set him to polishing an old brass Revolutionary cannon in the public square at $20 a week. He carried his own whistle in his pocket, to blow before he went to work, at lunch and when he quit. After four or five weeks of polishing, he appeared before the selectmen of the village to resign. “What do you want to quit for?” asked the Mayor. “Well,” said the half-wit, “this is the best job I ever had, but I’ve saved up enough money to buy a brass cannon! So I’m going into business for myself.”
That is, imitating the outward form of a thing without understanding how it works. See also “cargo cult” (and, for that matter, “management fad”).
And now a more general rant.
Honestly, reading LessWrong I sometimes feel like I’ve wandered into a bozo version of “The Invention of Lying”, one set in the real world, in which the Ricky Gervais character and his chums are the only people to whom lying comes as a stunningly new idea. And they set out to get anything they want by lying, and for a while it works because no-one’s expecting such idiocy, but eventually people get wise to them and they end up puzzled by why it isn’t working, when it obviously must.
Status signals are a known thing in the real world. False status signals are a known thing. People who habitually make falsely inflated status signals and imagine they are being taken seriously are a known thing. They are called “buffoons”, “blowhards”, “charlatans”, “impostors”, “humbugs”, “phoneys”, “all hat and no knickers”, and with a thesaurus I might double the list. Even in the enclosed world of geekdom they are a known thing: Dilbert’s boss. That is not something to practice being.
People who habitually make falsely inflated status signals and imagine they are being taken seriously are a known thing. They are called “buffoons”, “blowhards”, “charlatans”, “impostors”, “humbugs”, “phoneys”, “all hat and no knickers”, and with a thesaurus I might double the list.
We’re drifting towards fully general counterarguments here. “There are perfect liars everywhere! How could you ever know there aren’t?” “Finding no evidence for the conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy!”
In reality, liars have a more difficult job than unmaskers. The only person Dilbert’s boss is deceiving is himself (and maybe his higher-ups, who I’ve never seen shown in the strip). All of his underlings know his real character. You just have to ask, “What has this person done?” And, of course, look for the answer.
I completely agree. My point was not that one should display these behaviors to become high status (though there is value in fake-it-till-you-make-it, going out and doing these is a quick one-way ticket to looking like a disingenuous sleaze, you would be far better off working on inner game), but rather that these do have a basis in reality.
In light of your response, I had misinterpreted your original post. I took
If you imitate that list of things in real life, you’re copying a simulation of an appearance of a fiction. as Any imitation of this in real life is a copy of a simulation of an appearance of a fiction.
Of course Johnstone isn’t making these things up out of thin air. But he developed that work for the stage, and what happens on stage is not reality, it is a simulation of reality. And a simulation intended, not to be faithfully realistic, but to tickle the audience, and I think that the idea that an audience wants to see an actually accurate picture of reality on the stage is one that does not exactly jibe with the general views held on LessWrong. (Try it on Overcoming Bias, and I’m sure the instant pattern-matching response will be “fiction is not about reality”.)
What you see on stage is symbols of reality, not copies of it. As such, it can be worth studying these things, and even practicing them on stage. Even on the stage of real life, as long as it’s with strangers you do not expect to see again. But if you imitate in real life the signs of status that a theatre director trains his actors to use as theatrical tools, and expect to produce status in reality, then, well, this is what you are doing:
That is, imitating the outward form of a thing without understanding how it works. See also “cargo cult” (and, for that matter, “management fad”).
And now a more general rant.
Honestly, reading LessWrong I sometimes feel like I’ve wandered into a bozo version of “The Invention of Lying”, one set in the real world, in which the Ricky Gervais character and his chums are the only people to whom lying comes as a stunningly new idea. And they set out to get anything they want by lying, and for a while it works because no-one’s expecting such idiocy, but eventually people get wise to them and they end up puzzled by why it isn’t working, when it obviously must.
Status signals are a known thing in the real world. False status signals are a known thing. People who habitually make falsely inflated status signals and imagine they are being taken seriously are a known thing. They are called “buffoons”, “blowhards”, “charlatans”, “impostors”, “humbugs”, “phoneys”, “all hat and no knickers”, and with a thesaurus I might double the list. Even in the enclosed world of geekdom they are a known thing: Dilbert’s boss. That is not something to practice being.
You mean the ones who are bad at it.
We’re drifting towards fully general counterarguments here. “There are perfect liars everywhere! How could you ever know there aren’t?” “Finding no evidence for the conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy!”
In reality, liars have a more difficult job than unmaskers. The only person Dilbert’s boss is deceiving is himself (and maybe his higher-ups, who I’ve never seen shown in the strip). All of his underlings know his real character. You just have to ask, “What has this person done?” And, of course, look for the answer.
They are there all the time. Look for a guy with a particularly elongated head. Often talking to dogbert.
They have an easy job if they piggyback off of lies people already believe. Like say, faith healers.
I completely agree. My point was not that one should display these behaviors to become high status (though there is value in fake-it-till-you-make-it, going out and doing these is a quick one-way ticket to looking like a disingenuous sleaze, you would be far better off working on inner game), but rather that these do have a basis in reality.
In light of your response, I had misinterpreted your original post. I took
and it was that that I was addressing.