If you say Bob likes X because of Y, what do you mean with it? Do you mean that if Y wouldn’t be there Bob wouldn’t like X?
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”. That produces danger to get into too vague to be wrong territory.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”.
Let’s get more meta here. Usually the map-terrain distinction is used to describe how human minds interpret the chunks of reality that are not man-made. When we are talking about something that arises from the behavior of humans, how can we draw that distinction. Plato’s classic “What is justice?” is map or terrain? Here the terrain is in human minds too, as justice exists only inside minds and nowhere else, so the distinction seems to be more like is it the grand shared map or a more private map of maps? And the same with status. It does not exist outside the human perception of it. Similar to money, esp. paper/computer number money.
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks. I got the idea from here. If status microtransactions are so important…
Status is a confusing term, unless it’s understood as something one does. You may be low in status, but play high, and vice versa. … We always like it when a tramp is mistaken for the boss, or the boss for a tramp. … I should really talk about dominance and submission, but I’d create a resistance.
That means that dominance and submission map more directly to the territory than status does.
The author doesn’t argue that people care about mutually reinforcement of each other status as being high but that people also consciously make moves to submit and place themselves at a low status position.
The text invalidates your idea that people engage primarily in social interaction to maximize the amount of status.
You don’t pick that up if you make the error of not treating status as a model but as reality. Reality is complex. Models simplify reality. Sometimes the simplification keeps the essential elements of what you want to describe. Other times it doesn’t.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks.
Yes, it’s a typo likely because my spellchecker didn’t know “neurotypicals”.
If you say Bob likes X because of Y, what do you mean with it? Do you mean that if Y wouldn’t be there Bob wouldn’t like X?
I don’t think that there a good reason to believe that if you take status away no neurotically would engage in social mingling or like engaging in it.
Apart from that “status” is a word that’s quite abstract. It’s much more something “map” than “territory”. That produces danger to get into too vague to be wrong territory.
Let’s get more meta here. Usually the map-terrain distinction is used to describe how human minds interpret the chunks of reality that are not man-made. When we are talking about something that arises from the behavior of humans, how can we draw that distinction. Plato’s classic “What is justice?” is map or terrain? Here the terrain is in human minds too, as justice exists only inside minds and nowhere else, so the distinction seems to be more like is it the grand shared map or a more private map of maps? And the same with status. It does not exist outside the human perception of it. Similar to money, esp. paper/computer number money.
I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks. I got the idea from here. If status microtransactions are so important…
(to be continued gotta go now)
If you look at the link you posted it argues:
That means that dominance and submission map more directly to the territory than status does.
The author doesn’t argue that people care about mutually reinforcement of each other status as being high but that people also consciously make moves to submit and place themselves at a low status position.
The text invalidates your idea that people engage primarily in social interaction to maximize the amount of status.
You don’t pick that up if you make the error of not treating status as a model but as reality. Reality is complex. Models simplify reality. Sometimes the simplification keeps the essential elements of what you want to describe. Other times it doesn’t.
Yes, it’s a typo likely because my spellchecker didn’t know “neurotypicals”.