While Eugine’s comment could benefit from some clarification and refinement, I think you’re wrong to dismiss it as worthless. The status (or whatever similar term you want to use) assigned to enjoyment of sex versus enjoyment of punishment is definitely a culture-specific thing. (I can easily imagine a culture that, unlike ours, extols sexual asceticism along with righteous cruelty, and some historical examples aren’t too far off.) This certainly influences the choice of values that people would like to see perpetuated.
In this case it’s quite plausible though: People who advocate less sex or not enjoying sex and aren’t conservatives/religious/anti-pleasure in general expose themselves to the sour grapes explanation of their position and the low status implications of that. This is obvious enough that the Simpsons did it.
People who advocate less sex or not enjoying sex and aren’t conservatives/religious/anti-pleasure in general expose themselves to the sour grapes explanation of their position and the low status implications of that.
Careful about arguments that prove too much. My point is precisely that advocating not enjoying sex being low status is not universal in all cultures.
I’m quite aware of that. Anti-sex ideologies usually usually are either purity ideologies (conservative) or anti-pleasure in general, though. Some forms of feminism are an exception, but for women the status-sex relation is completely different anyway.
It’s plausible that this happens; but you can’t use it to explain itself. “Enjoying sex is high-status because it is high-status” doesn’t explain anything. Hence Eugine’s edit.
The super-parent is attempting to provide a reason why enjoying (not having) sex would be high-status, while enjoying punishing would be low status. Having sex is naturally high-status; but punishing people is equally high-status.
I’m not aware of the Simpsons ever making a joke about a character regulating punishment because they were too much of a loser to get in on everyone else’s punishment fun. The jump from “I’m against enjoying punishment” to “I’m too low status to get to punish people” is for whatever reason a lot longer than the equivalent for sex. It’s not at all obvious that this is due to the status differences themselves and not due to say logistics or some other non-status reason. Note that I’m not actually sharing Eugine_Nier’s position, I’m just defending it as at the very least not obviously useless.
I’m not aware of the Simpsons ever making a joke about a character regulating punishment because they were too much of a loser to get in on everyone else’s punishment fun.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to show besides the fact that the Simpsons reflects the culture that produced it.
Note that I’m not actually sharing Eugine_Nier’s position, I’m just defending it as at the very least not obviously useless.
I’d like to know what you think my position is, since in the above discussion I’ve found PhilGoetz’s posts to be closer to my position then your posts.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to show besides the fact that the Simpsons reflects the culture that produced it.
It wasn’t meant to show anything beyond tracing back the asymmetry concerning the two items in the culture that produced the Simpsons to a point where they might possibly be connected to non-status causes such as logistics.
I’d like to know what you think my position is, since in the above discussion I’ve found PhilGoetz’s posts to be closer to my position then your posts.
That the restatement of the observation as “in our current culture, enjoying sex is considered high status, whereas enjoying punishment is considered low status” would contribute to finding the mechanism that causes the observation instead of being the type of word magic Eliezer saw it as, which implies that status mechanisms are part of the of the causal chain.
I am aware that you disagree with the particulars of the causal chain elements I suggested, but you haven’t proposed an alternative yet. If the restatement wasn’t meant to help explain I’ll retract my upvote.
That the restatement of the observation as “in our current culture, enjoying sex is considered high status, whereas enjoying punishment is considered low status” would contribute to finding the mechanism that causes the observation instead of being the type of word magic Eliezer saw it as, which implies that status mechanisms are part of the of the causal chain.
I interpreted Eliezer’s comment as meaning that “high status” and “low status” are approximately synonymous with the things they’re being invoked to explain. (Or, at least, that no special motivation was given to expect status to play a role. It’s a reasonable heuristic for every social behavior to say, “Look for an explanation involving status”—but that also means it does not explain anything to say that; it’s the default assumption.)
That’s pretty much what I meant with “restatement” and “word magic”. As for default assumptions, that’s true if you don’t require the word status to do useful work compared to an equivalent explanation without that word, but “the word “status” will do useful work here” would be a productive statement to make if true.
I think this is what people are complaining about when they complain that “status” is being used isomorphically to “magic”.
While Eugine’s comment could benefit from some clarification and refinement, I think you’re wrong to dismiss it as worthless. The status (or whatever similar term you want to use) assigned to enjoyment of sex versus enjoyment of punishment is definitely a culture-specific thing. (I can easily imagine a culture that, unlike ours, extols sexual asceticism along with righteous cruelty, and some historical examples aren’t too far off.) This certainly influences the choice of values that people would like to see perpetuated.
You just deconstructed a large part of my next post before I made it.
In this case it’s quite plausible though: People who advocate less sex or not enjoying sex and aren’t conservatives/religious/anti-pleasure in general expose themselves to the sour grapes explanation of their position and the low status implications of that. This is obvious enough that the Simpsons did it.
Careful about arguments that prove too much. My point is precisely that advocating not enjoying sex being low status is not universal in all cultures.
I’m quite aware of that. Anti-sex ideologies usually usually are either purity ideologies (conservative) or anti-pleasure in general, though. Some forms of feminism are an exception, but for women the status-sex relation is completely different anyway.
It’s plausible that this happens; but you can’t use it to explain itself. “Enjoying sex is high-status because it is high-status” doesn’t explain anything. Hence Eugine’s edit.
Not being able to get sex being low status doesn’t require much in the way of explanation.
The super-parent is attempting to provide a reason why enjoying (not having) sex would be high-status, while enjoying punishing would be low status. Having sex is naturally high-status; but punishing people is equally high-status.
I’m not aware of the Simpsons ever making a joke about a character regulating punishment because they were too much of a loser to get in on everyone else’s punishment fun. The jump from “I’m against enjoying punishment” to “I’m too low status to get to punish people” is for whatever reason a lot longer than the equivalent for sex. It’s not at all obvious that this is due to the status differences themselves and not due to say logistics or some other non-status reason. Note that I’m not actually sharing Eugine_Nier’s position, I’m just defending it as at the very least not obviously useless.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to show besides the fact that the Simpsons reflects the culture that produced it.
I’d like to know what you think my position is, since in the above discussion I’ve found PhilGoetz’s posts to be closer to my position then your posts.
It wasn’t meant to show anything beyond tracing back the asymmetry concerning the two items in the culture that produced the Simpsons to a point where they might possibly be connected to non-status causes such as logistics.
That the restatement of the observation as “in our current culture, enjoying sex is considered high status, whereas enjoying punishment is considered low status” would contribute to finding the mechanism that causes the observation instead of being the type of word magic Eliezer saw it as, which implies that status mechanisms are part of the of the causal chain.
I am aware that you disagree with the particulars of the causal chain elements I suggested, but you haven’t proposed an alternative yet. If the restatement wasn’t meant to help explain I’ll retract my upvote.
I interpreted Eliezer’s comment as meaning that “high status” and “low status” are approximately synonymous with the things they’re being invoked to explain. (Or, at least, that no special motivation was given to expect status to play a role. It’s a reasonable heuristic for every social behavior to say, “Look for an explanation involving status”—but that also means it does not explain anything to say that; it’s the default assumption.)
That’s pretty much what I meant with “restatement” and “word magic”. As for default assumptions, that’s true if you don’t require the word status to do useful work compared to an equivalent explanation without that word, but “the word “status” will do useful work here” would be a productive statement to make if true.