For me, the answer for each question appears to be “both”.
Standing up straight--
High: Politician addressing an audience, wanting to show confidence
Low: Soldier, at attention
Saying what’s on your mind, without thinking it through--
High: Confident person, assured of their status in the group
Low: Person revealing emotions which are considered taboo to discuss.
Making an effort to have a pleasant conversation--
High: Skilled businessman or other “people person” trying motivated to accomplish a positive outcome with that person.
Low: Service industry person who must be deferential to keep their job
Wearing the most comfortable possible clothes--
High: The business owner who can wear whatever they want and still be paid attention to because of their innate value
Low: The slacker who has stopped caring about their sweapants and stained shirt
Apologizing to someone you’ve wronged--
High: The conscientious, strong, professional person with integrity who has the wisdom do recognize their mistake and seeks to keep lines of communication open and maintain an honest and fair relationship.
Low: Someone who must apologize for violating a social norm.
Blowing your nose in front of people--
High: A person assured in their humanity who doesn’t feel the need to hide their imperfections
Low: A person who lacks self-consciousness or “good breeding” or has stopped caring about their image.
Asking for permission--
High: Someone with values who respects others’ boundaries
Low: Someone who must appeal to authority to accomplish something
Showing off--
High: Someone who wants to achieve certain ends by a deliberate display of talent
Low: An immature person caught up in their shallow drives, who is not be that impressive, and is not impressing anyone that matters.
Some things the examples seem to have in common is:
-High status people have innate worth and are assured of their value. They do the same things but because they want to achieve something that is not necessary. i.e. they are free to do it.
-Low Status people are of low value to others. They do the same things because they have to do it or they will be punished.
These are good examples showing that status signals are not singular, isolated actions, but are interpreted by combining many different signals into a larger, complex whole with highly variant outcomes depending on which signals are being combined (alternatively, “context”).
I think recent posts on the topic are simplifying too much and providing overly broad, vague definitions of “signal” and “status”.
For me, the answer for each question appears to be “both”.
Standing up straight-- High: Politician addressing an audience, wanting to show confidence Low: Soldier, at attention
Saying what’s on your mind, without thinking it through-- High: Confident person, assured of their status in the group Low: Person revealing emotions which are considered taboo to discuss.
Making an effort to have a pleasant conversation-- High: Skilled businessman or other “people person” trying motivated to accomplish a positive outcome with that person. Low: Service industry person who must be deferential to keep their job
Wearing the most comfortable possible clothes-- High: The business owner who can wear whatever they want and still be paid attention to because of their innate value Low: The slacker who has stopped caring about their sweapants and stained shirt
Apologizing to someone you’ve wronged-- High: The conscientious, strong, professional person with integrity who has the wisdom do recognize their mistake and seeks to keep lines of communication open and maintain an honest and fair relationship. Low: Someone who must apologize for violating a social norm.
Blowing your nose in front of people-- High: A person assured in their humanity who doesn’t feel the need to hide their imperfections Low: A person who lacks self-consciousness or “good breeding” or has stopped caring about their image.
Asking for permission-- High: Someone with values who respects others’ boundaries Low: Someone who must appeal to authority to accomplish something
Showing off-- High: Someone who wants to achieve certain ends by a deliberate display of talent Low: An immature person caught up in their shallow drives, who is not be that impressive, and is not impressing anyone that matters.
Some things the examples seem to have in common is:
-High status people have innate worth and are assured of their value. They do the same things but because they want to achieve something that is not necessary. i.e. they are free to do it.
-Low Status people are of low value to others. They do the same things because they have to do it or they will be punished.
These are good examples showing that status signals are not singular, isolated actions, but are interpreted by combining many different signals into a larger, complex whole with highly variant outcomes depending on which signals are being combined (alternatively, “context”).
I think recent posts on the topic are simplifying too much and providing overly broad, vague definitions of “signal” and “status”.
You have to understand the idea that inferred self-optimization is a component of intuitive status inference.
Deniz gave good examples if how this component can be dominated or logically negated by other factors.
Evidence? If he (and apparently others) doesn’t understand it or doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t that suggest it might not be an intuitive component?