This wasn’t really meant as the thrust of the comment. I was trying to raise awareness of the difficulty of creating an absolute list of high status behaviours when people can counter signal. It means that there are always exceptions.
But since you replied to this aspect:
I think I now understand. Are you using “standing up straight” in an extremely literal way? If you mean that standing to attention—in an uncomfortable military style—is low status, then i would agree. I don’t think those models prove anything except that, within the bounds of what normal people would call standing up straight, they pretty much do.
This wasn’t really meant as the thrust of the comment. I was trying to raise awareness of the difficulty of creating an absolute list of high status behaviours when people can counter signal. It means that there are always exceptions.
You can only “counter-signal” when you already have high status established, regardless by which means. If you’re starting off with no pre-established status, then there exists a list of absolute high status behaviors, i.e. behaviors that are evidence of your high status.
I agree. But that doesn’t stop people getting high status behaviours confused with counter-signalling (like with standing up straight) and therefore, makes making these lists difficult.
Normally when someone does something high status and people’s reaction is “who does this person think he is?” the person signaled lower status somehow via other factors or past behaviors. So this “counter-signaling” is really people acting the status level others consider appropriate.
For example, blowing your nose in a job interview is a high status move, but displays inappropriate status level. The fact you’re interviewing for a job is evidence your status is lower than the interviewer’s—stronger evidence then your high status move.
This wasn’t really meant as the thrust of the comment. I was trying to raise awareness of the difficulty of creating an absolute list of high status behaviours when people can counter signal. It means that there are always exceptions.
But since you replied to this aspect:
I think I now understand. Are you using “standing up straight” in an extremely literal way? If you mean that standing to attention—in an uncomfortable military style—is low status, then i would agree. I don’t think those models prove anything except that, within the bounds of what normal people would call standing up straight, they pretty much do.
You can only “counter-signal” when you already have high status established, regardless by which means. If you’re starting off with no pre-established status, then there exists a list of absolute high status behaviors, i.e. behaviors that are evidence of your high status.
I agree. But that doesn’t stop people getting high status behaviours confused with counter-signalling (like with standing up straight) and therefore, makes making these lists difficult.
Normally when someone does something high status and people’s reaction is “who does this person think he is?” the person signaled lower status somehow via other factors or past behaviors. So this “counter-signaling” is really people acting the status level others consider appropriate.
For example, blowing your nose in a job interview is a high status move, but displays inappropriate status level. The fact you’re interviewing for a job is evidence your status is lower than the interviewer’s—stronger evidence then your high status move.
Nope. You’ve misunderstood counter-signalling. Alicorn wrote a great post about it.
I’ve read it… and I disagree with it.