The obvious problem with your ‘protocol’ is that affiliative behavior is strongly linked to status considerations. Humans seek to affiliate with high-status, attractive or otherwise impressive folks, and affiliating to others in an overzealous or seemingly “desparate” way can lead to an unconcious loss in status, even if nobody is overtly “punish[ed] or hate[d]” for their behavior.
Edit: A generally accepted workaround to the above problem is known as “qualifying”: if I find out something about you which would plausibly count as ‘impressive’, then I can lightly compliment you on that, and pretend that it really explains why I’m affiliating with you as someone who’s impressive. It’s really quite transparent, but it allows both counterparties to affiliate to one another while “saving face” with each other and any third parties.
and affiliating to others in an overzealous or seemingly “desparate” way can lead to an unconcious loss in status
I’m struggling a little to apply this to the post’s concept; could you help me come up with an example? I am thinking of a high-status person declaring themselves under Nyan’s Rules, receiving desperate or overzealous affection from another person, and unconsciously reducing that person’s status. This doesn’t seem like the obvious problem you mentioned though, so I feel I’ve gotten lost somewhere.
I’m struggling a little to apply this to the post’s concept; could you help me come up with an example?
Look at #1:
I want to optimize the level of affection between us; I probably want more of your love.
Saying that kind of thing will make the speaker have lower status after the utterance than before… unless they are somehow masterfully countersignalling. Even then it is something that is extremely hard to countersignal so it is almost always just a status lowering move.
Ok I’m new to this status thing. Can someone explain why it’s important?
I know it’s heavily weighted in our decisions, and options that might lower status are really scary. But we don’t live in a world where status lowers IGF anymore. I don’t even care about IGF. Why shouldn’t I self-modify to overcome that crippling fear?
Is it just that status crap is wired in and lowering my status will cause people to involuntarily not take me seriously? Maybe that’s the next piece of the group rationality puzzle to solve. This status thing hacked together by azathoth to optimize things we don’t care about anymore can’t possibly be optimal for what we want now.
Of course there is a component of status games being a fun terminal value like love, but I don’t really feel that right now. Have I failed to have some experience that would enlighten me? Am I impoverished by not knowing how to play this game? (serious, not rhetorical).
Ok I’m new to this status thing. Can someone explain why it’s important?
It is important in the way money is important. Understanding it is useful for predicting how people will be influenced by any given stimulus. For example, for many X you can reliably predict that saying X to a person of equal status would be fine but saying it to someone who thinks they are more important than you will prompt them to be offended, consider you arrogant and punish you socially.
This status thing hacked together by azathoth to optimize things we don’t care about anymore can’t possibly be optimal for what we want now.
“This hacked together status thing” is also what allowed us to produce civilisation and redirects the vast majority of competition away from direct violence and into on net pro-social forms of competition. Getting rid of it because it doesn’t seem nice would bring with it the same problem that trying to get rid of markets because greediness doesn’t seem nice would have.
Have I failed to have some experience that would enlighten me?
You do know how to play this game, to a significant degree (you are vaguely functional and don’t find yourself beaten up or arrested too often, right?). Just not as well as you could.
Am I impoverished by not knowing how to play this game?
You are less effective than you could be. For example, If you were more socially aware (“better at playing this game”) then you would be able to take actions much more likely to actually produce changes in your local social environment in the direction of the easygoing effective bonding and affection than what you have done here.
IIUC, you are saying that status games are the current reality, and playing them is instrumental. I’ll take your opinion seriously. I’ll learn how to play this status thing better.
The other question is, is it the best we could be doing? If we could choose how to organize our communities and our minds, would we put this status game in? If no, it seems that alongside learning to deal with the current reality, we should spend some resources figuring out how to change it.
IIRC, you are saying that status games are the current reality, and playing them is instrumental.
Yes, but not merely.
There are aspects of the specific ways status games are played by humans, and humans in my culture and subcultures specifically that are arbitrary and undesirable and that I would change if I could. However the game itself is playing a critical role of solving a complex cooperation problem in a way that doesn’t end up with everyone dead. You don’t just arbitrarily discard your entire power structure because having power structures is unpleasant. Because everyone dies, nothing works and power—and something analogous to status—still exists so long as there are multiple agents around that can make decisions that impact each other.
Of course we shouldn’t just be idiots about it. I am reminded of Bob Dylan’s “don’t criticize what you can’t understand” and random internet parable “If you don’t know what the fence is for, I cannot allow you to remove it.”
But if a large part of our daily lives seems unpleasant and we have reason to believe it is nonoptimal, it’s worth looking for how can we do at least incrementally better.
Of course we shouldn’t just be idiots about it. I am reminded of Bob Dylan’s “don’t criticize what you can’t understand” and random internet parable “If you don’t know what the fence is for, I cannot allow you to remove it.”
I had exactly that parable in mind while I was responding. Like it.
But if a large part of our daily lives seems unpleasant and we have reason to believe it is nonoptimal, it’s worth looking for how can we do at least incrementally better.
Actually, both wedrifid’s and shokwave’s scenarios are problematic. I think that one would not really lose status from simply declaring Nyan.cat^W^WNyan’s rules, but that still leaves it open to what extent you will actually allow others to overtly affiliate with you, or return the affiliation in kind. My concern is that these rules might just make things less transparent, and not increase affection or social bonding in any meaningful sense.
I don’t generally think about status, so I didn’t catch that one.
I guess you mean that if it is high status to be mean to people there could be a problem; adopting the rules would sabotage you. Not sure I’d want anything to do with a community like that tho. Anyways, people who deem themselves too high-status to cooperate can opt-out.
I don’t generally think about status, so I didn’t catch that one.
You went through the process of creating a protocol for optimizing affection and status considerations didn’t cross your mind? Wow! I can’t decide whether that state of mind would be relaxing, completely crippling or perhaps a little of both.
I don’t usually find my own version of status-obliviousness* disabling, but I think this is partly because I am surrounded by friendly others who will use words to tell me things.
*Anna thinks I am “orthogonal to status”, and thinks this should be more widely known, because it would raise my status. I think this is funny. (I cannot tell the difference between deliberately aped high- and low-status body language, and apparently I handle things that are opportunities to make status moves one way or the other in unrelated ways without noticing.)
Where? (Is reporting something that someone else said because I think it funny some kind of status bid and therefore ironic?)
No, I was actually finding it ironic that in this circumstance it was Anna in the role of the status guru, describing how you handle opportunities to make status moves one way or the other without noticing. It is not quite the area that I would have described as Anna’s greatest strength. It wouldn’t have seemed at all out of place if you were making the description of her.
Being aware of status has caused me to either 1. make status-stealing moves more often or 2. be more aware and conscious of making status-stealing movies, with the practical upshot of both being that social interactions have become a little less enjoyable for other people.
How did you study status? My biggest single source of information has been Keith Johnstone’s book Impro (although I haven’t actually done any improv, too scary), and I started liking social interactions more than before. They feel less confusing and arbitrary; more like a game that can be mutually enjoyable, and in which both participants can “raise their score.”
This hasn’t been a problem for me, so my experience doesn’t include the benefit of understanding social interaction more. It seems likely that if I had been confused, I’d have recommended learning about status instead of recommending against it.
The Office according to The Office, and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.
These only really apply to organized hierarchies, though. When people talk about “status” mattering in human interactions, they mean a combination of perceived power, influence, impressiveness and the like, plus instinctual dominance-submissiveness interactions. Formal hierarchies in a complex organization are a distinct matter, although they do influence status in the former sense.
The obvious problem with your ‘protocol’ is that affiliative behavior is strongly linked to status considerations. Humans seek to affiliate with high-status, attractive or otherwise impressive folks, and affiliating to others in an overzealous or seemingly “desparate” way can lead to an unconcious loss in status, even if nobody is overtly “punish[ed] or hate[d]” for their behavior.
Edit: A generally accepted workaround to the above problem is known as “qualifying”: if I find out something about you which would plausibly count as ‘impressive’, then I can lightly compliment you on that, and pretend that it really explains why I’m affiliating with you as someone who’s impressive. It’s really quite transparent, but it allows both counterparties to affiliate to one another while “saving face” with each other and any third parties.
I’m struggling a little to apply this to the post’s concept; could you help me come up with an example? I am thinking of a high-status person declaring themselves under Nyan’s Rules, receiving desperate or overzealous affection from another person, and unconsciously reducing that person’s status. This doesn’t seem like the obvious problem you mentioned though, so I feel I’ve gotten lost somewhere.
Look at #1:
Saying that kind of thing will make the speaker have lower status after the utterance than before… unless they are somehow masterfully countersignalling. Even then it is something that is extremely hard to countersignal so it is almost always just a status lowering move.
Ok I’m new to this status thing. Can someone explain why it’s important?
I know it’s heavily weighted in our decisions, and options that might lower status are really scary. But we don’t live in a world where status lowers IGF anymore. I don’t even care about IGF. Why shouldn’t I self-modify to overcome that crippling fear?
Is it just that status crap is wired in and lowering my status will cause people to involuntarily not take me seriously? Maybe that’s the next piece of the group rationality puzzle to solve. This status thing hacked together by azathoth to optimize things we don’t care about anymore can’t possibly be optimal for what we want now.
Of course there is a component of status games being a fun terminal value like love, but I don’t really feel that right now. Have I failed to have some experience that would enlighten me? Am I impoverished by not knowing how to play this game? (serious, not rhetorical).
It is important in the way money is important. Understanding it is useful for predicting how people will be influenced by any given stimulus. For example, for many X you can reliably predict that saying X to a person of equal status would be fine but saying it to someone who thinks they are more important than you will prompt them to be offended, consider you arrogant and punish you socially.
“This hacked together status thing” is also what allowed us to produce civilisation and redirects the vast majority of competition away from direct violence and into on net pro-social forms of competition. Getting rid of it because it doesn’t seem nice would bring with it the same problem that trying to get rid of markets because greediness doesn’t seem nice would have.
You do know how to play this game, to a significant degree (you are vaguely functional and don’t find yourself beaten up or arrested too often, right?). Just not as well as you could.
You are less effective than you could be. For example, If you were more socially aware (“better at playing this game”) then you would be able to take actions much more likely to actually produce changes in your local social environment in the direction of the easygoing effective bonding and affection than what you have done here.
IIUC, you are saying that status games are the current reality, and playing them is instrumental. I’ll take your opinion seriously. I’ll learn how to play this status thing better.
The other question is, is it the best we could be doing? If we could choose how to organize our communities and our minds, would we put this status game in? If no, it seems that alongside learning to deal with the current reality, we should spend some resources figuring out how to change it.
Yes, but not merely.
There are aspects of the specific ways status games are played by humans, and humans in my culture and subcultures specifically that are arbitrary and undesirable and that I would change if I could. However the game itself is playing a critical role of solving a complex cooperation problem in a way that doesn’t end up with everyone dead. You don’t just arbitrarily discard your entire power structure because having power structures is unpleasant. Because everyone dies, nothing works and power—and something analogous to status—still exists so long as there are multiple agents around that can make decisions that impact each other.
Of course we shouldn’t just be idiots about it. I am reminded of Bob Dylan’s “don’t criticize what you can’t understand” and random internet parable “If you don’t know what the fence is for, I cannot allow you to remove it.”
But if a large part of our daily lives seems unpleasant and we have reason to believe it is nonoptimal, it’s worth looking for how can we do at least incrementally better.
Is that metaphor actually a random Internet thing? I normally attribute it to Chesterton.
Good to know the proper attribution. To me it’s just another meme. Doesn’t matter who said it.
I had exactly that parable in mind while I was responding. Like it.
Totally agree. Want a hug?
Internet Hug Protocol, v0.1
INTERNET HUG!!!!
Actually, both wedrifid’s and shokwave’s scenarios are problematic. I think that one would not really lose status from simply declaring Nyan.cat^W^WNyan’s rules, but that still leaves it open to what extent you will actually allow others to overtly affiliate with you, or return the affiliation in kind. My concern is that these rules might just make things less transparent, and not increase affection or social bonding in any meaningful sense.
Ah, I see.
Yay! Obvious problems!
I don’t generally think about status, so I didn’t catch that one.
I guess you mean that if it is high status to be mean to people there could be a problem; adopting the rules would sabotage you. Not sure I’d want anything to do with a community like that tho. Anyways, people who deem themselves too high-status to cooperate can opt-out.
You went through the process of creating a protocol for optimizing affection and status considerations didn’t cross your mind? Wow! I can’t decide whether that state of mind would be relaxing, completely crippling or perhaps a little of both.
I don’t usually find my own version of status-obliviousness* disabling, but I think this is partly because I am surrounded by friendly others who will use words to tell me things.
*Anna thinks I am “orthogonal to status”, and thinks this should be more widely known, because it would raise my status. I think this is funny. (I cannot tell the difference between deliberately aped high- and low-status body language, and apparently I handle things that are opportunities to make status moves one way or the other in unrelated ways without noticing.)
There is a certain amount of irony in here somewhere.
Where? (Is reporting something that someone else said because I think it funny some kind of status bid and therefore ironic?)
No, I was actually finding it ironic that in this circumstance it was Anna in the role of the status guru, describing how you handle opportunities to make status moves one way or the other without noticing. It is not quite the area that I would have described as Anna’s greatest strength. It wouldn’t have seemed at all out of place if you were making the description of her.
Anna’s is the phrasing; others have pointed out situations in which I have not-statused.
Status is what other people think of you. Anna is an other person.
Edit: Or not!
I think I will have to study this “status” thing a bit more.
I recommend against it, if you’re capable of denying your curiosity here. I don’t think I’m better off for having studied it.
Why do you recommend against it?
Being aware of status has caused me to either 1. make status-stealing moves more often or 2. be more aware and conscious of making status-stealing movies, with the practical upshot of both being that social interactions have become a little less enjoyable for other people.
Well, don’t do that then.
My kingdom for complete causal control over my actions!
That can be an easy excuse for not doing that then.
How did you study status? My biggest single source of information has been Keith Johnstone’s book Impro (although I haven’t actually done any improv, too scary), and I started liking social interactions more than before. They feel less confusing and arbitrary; more like a game that can be mutually enjoyable, and in which both participants can “raise their score.”
This hasn’t been a problem for me, so my experience doesn’t include the benefit of understanding social interaction more. It seems likely that if I had been confused, I’d have recommended learning about status instead of recommending against it.
As for how I studied it: Overcoming Bias posts on the matter, The Office according to The Office, and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.
These only really apply to organized hierarchies, though. When people talk about “status” mattering in human interactions, they mean a combination of perceived power, influence, impressiveness and the like, plus instinctual dominance-submissiveness interactions. Formal hierarchies in a complex organization are a distinct matter, although they do influence status in the former sense.
also being depressed about human interaction.