This topic is a little stressful for to read about, because in the course of doing ours jobs, we risk enacting low or high status behaviors. And these often lead to conflicts with status obsessed people.
For instance, deferring to a more knowledgeable colleague might set a precedent that’s hard to change, while assertively leading an initiative can sometimes spark disputes over status.
It doesn’t help that we rationalists are part of a very direct ask/tell culture, so we can often conflict with most other cultures.
But being rationalists, we should not just theorycel but consider helpful strategies. Here’s a few:
Reevaluate your need for status: We all feel like we need status, but we often do not. Mostly it’s expensive and fleeting. It’s expensive because all humans crave it, and it’s fleeting because it disappears when you change city/job/relationship. It also decays with the passing of time so it has a carry cost.
Buy low/sell high: You do need enough to get by. Enough so that people will listen to you when it’s important and not mistreat you. You want to stock up when it’s cheap and needed, and you want to give it up when it’s expensive and unneeded. It does require maintenance, and it is not transferable, so this limits the value of stocking up. But within a friend group, team, or hobby group you could build up status when it’s cheap (during the founding days for example, or during a lull in popularity, or a crisis).
Stake a small defensible territory: Status can be expensive, if you need it, you could aim to defend a small area: like a technical niche where you have some natural advantage and can make a difference
Leverage your strengths: It’s easier to behave like the boss when you are in fact the boss. And it’s easier to maintain some minimum status when you have the credentials/friends/expertise to back it up.
Strategic Deference: If you’re employed by someone, they likely expect a degree of deference. They may value certain forms of deference (such as dominating conversations) while being indifferent to others (like genuine agreement). Or it may be the other way round. This distinction allows for strategic interaction. I’m reminded of Bryan Caplan’s post on non-conformism
Don’t be an absolutist non-conformist. Conforming in small ways often gives you the opportunity to non-conform in big ways. Being deferential to your boss, for example, opens up a world of possibilities.
Adjust your communication to the status hierarchy you are in, ideally in the cheapest ways possible. It’s cheap if it doesn’t take much effort, and doesn’t sacrifice your goals. We rationalists tend to be seen as more blunt, disagreeable, argumentative, pedantic, and complicated than other cultures, so you should almost always compensate somewhat.
Earn weirdness points: Establish a reputation for being unorthodox in ways that are tolerated. This approach helps ensure that your actions are less likely to be interpreted purely through a status lens.
Allies: one thing this essay seemed to miss is the status benefit of having many friend and allies. This is a positive sum status game, so it’s good to participate!
This topic is a little stressful for to read about, because in the course of doing ours jobs, we risk enacting low or high status behaviors. And these often lead to conflicts with status obsessed people.
For instance, deferring to a more knowledgeable colleague might set a precedent that’s hard to change, while assertively leading an initiative can sometimes spark disputes over status.
It doesn’t help that we rationalists are part of a very direct ask/tell culture, so we can often conflict with most other cultures.
But being rationalists, we should not just theorycel but consider helpful strategies. Here’s a few:
Reevaluate your need for status: We all feel like we need status, but we often do not. Mostly it’s expensive and fleeting. It’s expensive because all humans crave it, and it’s fleeting because it disappears when you change city/job/relationship. It also decays with the passing of time so it has a carry cost.
Buy low/sell high: You do need enough to get by. Enough so that people will listen to you when it’s important and not mistreat you. You want to stock up when it’s cheap and needed, and you want to give it up when it’s expensive and unneeded. It does require maintenance, and it is not transferable, so this limits the value of stocking up. But within a friend group, team, or hobby group you could build up status when it’s cheap (during the founding days for example, or during a lull in popularity, or a crisis).
Stake a small defensible territory: Status can be expensive, if you need it, you could aim to defend a small area: like a technical niche where you have some natural advantage and can make a difference
Leverage your strengths: It’s easier to behave like the boss when you are in fact the boss. And it’s easier to maintain some minimum status when you have the credentials/friends/expertise to back it up.
Strategic Deference: If you’re employed by someone, they likely expect a degree of deference. They may value certain forms of deference (such as dominating conversations) while being indifferent to others (like genuine agreement). Or it may be the other way round. This distinction allows for strategic interaction. I’m reminded of Bryan Caplan’s post on non-conformism
Adjust your communication to the status hierarchy you are in, ideally in the cheapest ways possible. It’s cheap if it doesn’t take much effort, and doesn’t sacrifice your goals. We rationalists tend to be seen as more blunt, disagreeable, argumentative, pedantic, and complicated than other cultures, so you should almost always compensate somewhat.
Earn weirdness points: Establish a reputation for being unorthodox in ways that are tolerated. This approach helps ensure that your actions are less likely to be interpreted purely through a status lens.
Allies: one thing this essay seemed to miss is the status benefit of having many friend and allies. This is a positive sum status game, so it’s good to participate!
Anyone got other ideas?