Generally, by asking yourself how you’d feel if you heard about some generic third party that had accomplished something similar, and noticing the difference in valence. This can be a hard skill to cultivate; the urge to narrativize is strong.
Generally, by asking yourself how you’d feel if you heard about some generic third party that had accomplished something similar, and noticing the difference in valence.
I’m not sure I follow—accomplished something similar to what…? You don’t talk about accomplishments in your post; am I missing some context here?
I’d agree with this. In which case, you calibrate against actual, real-world measurements of trust and value, and see if the heuristic outputs the same results as an uncached, laborous computation.
Sometimes it’s cheaper to fake status than to pay the costly signals of status like becoming a professional natural therapist instead of doing a medical degree to become a doctor.
Because of that the people trying to measure trust/value have to develop better ways at measuring the difference between true costly signals and fake signals.
I don’t know what a “rational, unbiased world” looks like (or even if the concept is coherent), so I couldn’t begin to answer that question!
But I assume you have an answer in mind, so, I’ll bite: what?
(Really all I wanted was to understand what you were saying in the post, which seemed interesting but in need of clarification. Of course, if that is indeed what you’re providing in this conversation, then carry on.)
Can you say a bit more about this? That is, can you talk a bit about what this looks like, how to identify such cases, etc.?
Generally, by asking yourself how you’d feel if you heard about some generic third party that had accomplished something similar, and noticing the difference in valence. This can be a hard skill to cultivate; the urge to narrativize is strong.
I’m not sure I follow—accomplished something similar to what…? You don’t talk about accomplishments in your post; am I missing some context here?
I think so, yeah.
Answer me this: in a rational, unbiased world, what is status *FOR*?
Just answering this question. Need to read above but status is a heuristic for trust and value.
Doctors have high status because they should know more about health. Same applies to other professions.
I’d agree with this. In which case, you calibrate against actual, real-world measurements of trust and value, and see if the heuristic outputs the same results as an uncached, laborous computation.
Sometimes it’s cheaper to fake status than to pay the costly signals of status like becoming a professional natural therapist instead of doing a medical degree to become a doctor.
Because of that the people trying to measure trust/value have to develop better ways at measuring the difference between true costly signals and fake signals.
I don’t know what a “rational, unbiased world” looks like (or even if the concept is coherent), so I couldn’t begin to answer that question!
But I assume you have an answer in mind, so, I’ll bite: what?
(Really all I wanted was to understand what you were saying in the post, which seemed interesting but in need of clarification. Of course, if that is indeed what you’re providing in this conversation, then carry on.)