One issue I see is that the evidence on this is likely to be mostly anecdotal, rather than qualitative and carefully recorded under bias-mitigating conditions. But I’m willing to pursue the line of inquiry.
Expanding that list, you would assign low probability of scoring a gorgeous date to a poor, stupid, ugly dude no one has ever heard of and who can’t pull rank on anyone.
Neither would I. So the surprising prediction, with this low prior, would be that such a person could systematically, by displaying specific behaviors, improve their chances above the base rate for someone similarly situated.
Can you give specific examples of single behaviors which have that effect? Or, if single behaviours do not reliably have that effect, a minimal set of distinct behaviors that do have that effect?
If these behaviors were to match up reliably (which I’m not sure how we’d measure, but set that aside for now) with behaviors independently predicted (say, from observation of primate behavior) to be found in dominant individuals in something like our EEA, that would convince me of a useful “status hypothesis”.
It seems that we’re heading into the PUA topic. I’m hoping we can do that in a reasonable way, i.e. without offending anyone. I promise to drop the thread if anyone feels offended, even at something someone else says. If that does happen I’ll make amends by thinking seriously about why that happens.
An interesting observation is that the PUA community also refers often to the Keith Johnstone book as a “primary source” for their list of supposed high-status behaviors. (I’m guessing that’s where Robin Hanson picked up the reference.) Johnstone’s own inspiration was Desmond Morris of Naked Ape fame; at least that much is tracking for me. On the other hand, Johnstone himself is no scientist, but a drama instructor.
Can you give specific examples of single behaviors which have that effect? Or, if single behaviours do not reliably have that effect, a minimal set of distinct behaviors that do have that effect?
There probably aren’t going to be any, due to what the PUAs call “shit testing”.
The term refers to deliberate probing behaviors intended to determine someone’s status (and therefore attractiveness), by finding out how confident they are in response to resistance, criticism, etc.
This potentially lets the tester get past any faked confidence/status signals, and appears to be triggered by any incongruity or sense that the status-displaying person is “too good to be true”.
Or in more Bayesian terms, when an approaching man’s status displays indicate higher status than a woman’s prior for the status of men approaching her, she will be more inclined to respond in ways that “test” him, in order to determine his true status.
However, the PUAs also generally contend that this process never stops, although it occurs more at first meeting and at any perceived status increase, with “maintenance” testing occurring throughout a relationship.
During these testing periods, however, testing behaviors usually escalate, and rely heavily on immediate, unconscious reactions rather than on consciously controlled behaviors… which are much harder to fake.
I recall one experience I had—not trying to pick anyone up, but just talking with a woman who was displaying attraction signals after I sociably teased and picked on her a bit. At one point, she asked me something that I declined to do, and I made some sort of status-implying joke about it.
She then asked me in an almost-angry tone, “Are you for real?” I hesitated, for just a fraction of a second… and then the dynamic changed. Her previous displays of attraction disappeared in an instant.
At the time, I reacted to the words and the tone, but when I replayed in my mind what I saw at the time, I could see that she really did want to know if I was “for real”, was hoping I was (very expectant look, slight hopeful upturn of tone at the end of the sentence), and was then disappointed (slumped shoulders, vacant gaze) to see my hesitation… and therefore, my non-realness.
Interestingly, the point at which this occurred was precisely the point at which I had attempted a status display that I did not truly feel; i.e., one that was higher than my own perception of my status in the interaction. All of the status-implying jokes I made before that point were ones I was 100% confident of, whereas that one I wasn’t entirely sure of.
On a more recent note, my wife tends to make “testing” comments or actions whenever I make mental changes that positively affect my interactions with her… and she knows that she does it, but doesn’t know how to stop. She describes it as an impulsive feeling that I’m being “too good to be true” and of wanting to know if I’m “for real”, with things blurting out of her mouth before she can stop them.
Both of these experiences seem to support the idea that status testing is an interactive process, at least in the context of men’s attractiveness to women. Which is probably why some PUA gurus emphasize practice so much (so that their students’ status moves will be natural), while others emphasize working on personal centeredness (so that their students won’t appear hesitant or unsure of themselves, no matter what other people do or say).
IOW, the overt status signals being discussed here are only bids for status, in the attractiveness context. Actual status is determined by whether you can back up your bid, or more precisely, by whether you appear 100% confident in your ability to back up your bid, as measured by your response to challenges.
An interesting observation is that the PUA community also refers often to the Keith Johnstone book as a “primary source” for their list of supposed high-status behaviors. (I’m guessing that’s where Robin Hanson picked up the reference.) Johnstone’s own inspiration was Desmond Morris of Naked Ape fame; at least that much is tracking for me. On the other hand, Johnstone himself is no scientist, but a drama instructor.
It would be more accurate to say Johnstone’s book is a “primary inspiration”. The examples of high status behaviors given actually tend to be based off a combination of personal experience, cultural learning and wider reading in evolutionary and social psychology. Cialdini is also commonly referenced, as is Dawkins. In fact, references range as far as animal training guides, with the caveat that experience and discretion is applied in working out which of the status moves apply even across the boundaries of species.
Neither would I. So the surprising prediction, with this low prior, would be that such a person could systematically, by displaying specific behaviors, improve their chances above the base rate for someone similarly situated.
Can you give specific examples of single behaviors which have that effect? Or, if single behaviours do not reliably have that effect, a minimal set of distinct behaviors that do have that effect?
Playful teasing combined with emotionally non-reactive response to challenges has that effect reliably (and to some extent applies independently of just attraction of mates).
Strong eye contact is possibly an even stronger example. By strong eye contact I mean holding eye contact until the other party breaks it, with a slight pause from when they look away to when you do. If the other party doesn’t look away quickly, this is actually a surprisingly difficult thing to do and so doing it naturally remains a reasonably effective status signal.
I cannot, for obvious reasons, give personal testament that these examples work for attracting mates even if you are ugly… but I have seen it work for others that may fit that description.
One issue I see is that the evidence on this is likely to be mostly anecdotal, rather than qualitative and carefully recorded under bias-mitigating conditions. But I’m willing to pursue the line of inquiry.
Expanding that list, you would assign low probability of scoring a gorgeous date to a poor, stupid, ugly dude no one has ever heard of and who can’t pull rank on anyone.
Neither would I. So the surprising prediction, with this low prior, would be that such a person could systematically, by displaying specific behaviors, improve their chances above the base rate for someone similarly situated.
Can you give specific examples of single behaviors which have that effect? Or, if single behaviours do not reliably have that effect, a minimal set of distinct behaviors that do have that effect?
If these behaviors were to match up reliably (which I’m not sure how we’d measure, but set that aside for now) with behaviors independently predicted (say, from observation of primate behavior) to be found in dominant individuals in something like our EEA, that would convince me of a useful “status hypothesis”.
It seems that we’re heading into the PUA topic. I’m hoping we can do that in a reasonable way, i.e. without offending anyone. I promise to drop the thread if anyone feels offended, even at something someone else says. If that does happen I’ll make amends by thinking seriously about why that happens.
An interesting observation is that the PUA community also refers often to the Keith Johnstone book as a “primary source” for their list of supposed high-status behaviors. (I’m guessing that’s where Robin Hanson picked up the reference.) Johnstone’s own inspiration was Desmond Morris of Naked Ape fame; at least that much is tracking for me. On the other hand, Johnstone himself is no scientist, but a drama instructor.
There probably aren’t going to be any, due to what the PUAs call “shit testing”.
The term refers to deliberate probing behaviors intended to determine someone’s status (and therefore attractiveness), by finding out how confident they are in response to resistance, criticism, etc.
This potentially lets the tester get past any faked confidence/status signals, and appears to be triggered by any incongruity or sense that the status-displaying person is “too good to be true”.
Or in more Bayesian terms, when an approaching man’s status displays indicate higher status than a woman’s prior for the status of men approaching her, she will be more inclined to respond in ways that “test” him, in order to determine his true status.
However, the PUAs also generally contend that this process never stops, although it occurs more at first meeting and at any perceived status increase, with “maintenance” testing occurring throughout a relationship.
During these testing periods, however, testing behaviors usually escalate, and rely heavily on immediate, unconscious reactions rather than on consciously controlled behaviors… which are much harder to fake.
I recall one experience I had—not trying to pick anyone up, but just talking with a woman who was displaying attraction signals after I sociably teased and picked on her a bit. At one point, she asked me something that I declined to do, and I made some sort of status-implying joke about it.
She then asked me in an almost-angry tone, “Are you for real?” I hesitated, for just a fraction of a second… and then the dynamic changed. Her previous displays of attraction disappeared in an instant.
At the time, I reacted to the words and the tone, but when I replayed in my mind what I saw at the time, I could see that she really did want to know if I was “for real”, was hoping I was (very expectant look, slight hopeful upturn of tone at the end of the sentence), and was then disappointed (slumped shoulders, vacant gaze) to see my hesitation… and therefore, my non-realness.
Interestingly, the point at which this occurred was precisely the point at which I had attempted a status display that I did not truly feel; i.e., one that was higher than my own perception of my status in the interaction. All of the status-implying jokes I made before that point were ones I was 100% confident of, whereas that one I wasn’t entirely sure of.
On a more recent note, my wife tends to make “testing” comments or actions whenever I make mental changes that positively affect my interactions with her… and she knows that she does it, but doesn’t know how to stop. She describes it as an impulsive feeling that I’m being “too good to be true” and of wanting to know if I’m “for real”, with things blurting out of her mouth before she can stop them.
Both of these experiences seem to support the idea that status testing is an interactive process, at least in the context of men’s attractiveness to women. Which is probably why some PUA gurus emphasize practice so much (so that their students’ status moves will be natural), while others emphasize working on personal centeredness (so that their students won’t appear hesitant or unsure of themselves, no matter what other people do or say).
IOW, the overt status signals being discussed here are only bids for status, in the attractiveness context. Actual status is determined by whether you can back up your bid, or more precisely, by whether you appear 100% confident in your ability to back up your bid, as measured by your response to challenges.
It would be more accurate to say Johnstone’s book is a “primary inspiration”. The examples of high status behaviors given actually tend to be based off a combination of personal experience, cultural learning and wider reading in evolutionary and social psychology. Cialdini is also commonly referenced, as is Dawkins. In fact, references range as far as animal training guides, with the caveat that experience and discretion is applied in working out which of the status moves apply even across the boundaries of species.
Playful teasing combined with emotionally non-reactive response to challenges has that effect reliably (and to some extent applies independently of just attraction of mates).
Strong eye contact is possibly an even stronger example. By strong eye contact I mean holding eye contact until the other party breaks it, with a slight pause from when they look away to when you do. If the other party doesn’t look away quickly, this is actually a surprisingly difficult thing to do and so doing it naturally remains a reasonably effective status signal.
I cannot, for obvious reasons, give personal testament that these examples work for attracting mates even if you are ugly… but I have seen it work for others that may fit that description.