It seems like ‘social status’ is mentioned exactly once:
“In reality, everyone’s morality is based on status games.” → “As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of people have a morality that grounds out in social status.”
Which really seems like a key point that should be further reinforced by other sections, considering the topic discussed and your expressed desires, not tucked away obliquely in an isolated quote box.
“As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of people have a morality that grounds out in social status.”
seems straightforwardly understandable, at least to me.
Are you confused by the meaning or implications?
By the way, I almost never write with a Straussian intention since only a tiny subset of LW readers are sufficiently savvy and motivated to dig through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Presumably Duncan is not entirely immune to status considerations, so it’s advantageous to beat around the bush a bit, but it doesn’t seem like his intention was to hide a deeper meaning within either.
Er, note that that example was about someone being overconfident about status being important, and that the recommendation was that they note that their conclusion lives inside their head and might not be real.
I do not think that the hypothesis that everyone’s morality is based on status is a key point or should have more time here. I think it’s usually a curiosity stopper and a Red Herring and we-as-a-community already talk about it too much given how little detail our median member has in their mental model.
Though ‘overwhelming majority’ seems reasonable. If by that we mean 90%+ of the population, every community I’ve ever observed for more than a hour would likely fall into that bucket.
‘Pecking orders’ and so on.
Online communities probably too, though as interactions are primarily text based I’m less confident in that regard.
I don’t think my views are unique either, anyone who has emotional/social intelligence above a certain threshold and who’s also been in the middle or near the top of any status hierarchy would likely be able to sniff out what’s what fairly quickly.
Of course many still sometimes try to hide and disguise their behaviour with something less objectionable then naked social status competition, but when the disguises are paper-thin it doesn’t really have any potential to fool the experienced.
It seems like ‘social status’ is mentioned exactly once:
Which really seems like a key point that should be further reinforced by other sections, considering the topic discussed and your expressed desires, not tucked away obliquely in an isolated quote box.
I think you are intending something obvious to be implied by your comment but I’m not sure what it is
The narrower claim of:
“As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of people have a morality that grounds out in social status.”
seems straightforwardly understandable, at least to me.
Are you confused by the meaning or implications?
By the way, I almost never write with a Straussian intention since only a tiny subset of LW readers are sufficiently savvy and motivated to dig through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Presumably Duncan is not entirely immune to status considerations, so it’s advantageous to beat around the bush a bit, but it doesn’t seem like his intention was to hide a deeper meaning within either.
i mean given the belief that social status is very relevant to a lot of people, what would you say differently if you were writing the post?
Er, note that that example was about someone being overconfident about status being important, and that the recommendation was that they note that their conclusion lives inside their head and might not be real.
I do not think that the hypothesis that everyone’s morality is based on status is a key point or should have more time here. I think it’s usually a curiosity stopper and a Red Herring and we-as-a-community already talk about it too much given how little detail our median member has in their mental model.
I agree ‘everyone’ is overconfidence.
Though ‘overwhelming majority’ seems reasonable. If by that we mean 90%+ of the population, every community I’ve ever observed for more than a hour would likely fall into that bucket.
‘Pecking orders’ and so on.
Online communities probably too, though as interactions are primarily text based I’m less confident in that regard.
I don’t think my views are unique either, anyone who has emotional/social intelligence above a certain threshold and who’s also been in the middle or near the top of any status hierarchy would likely be able to sniff out what’s what fairly quickly.
Of course many still sometimes try to hide and disguise their behaviour with something less objectionable then naked social status competition, but when the disguises are paper-thin it doesn’t really have any potential to fool the experienced.