But they wouldn’t be constant given what you describe which makes me skeptical of the intuitions provoked. The fire is probably more likely to get built cooperatively on the island where the jokes got laughs—but that has to do with bonding and mood, not status.
Good point. What example of status changing can I use to best clarify I’m talking about just one variable?
I will try mentioning varying ways of gaining status, each with side effects, and specify that only one variable is considered. Hopefully someone can think of a single good scenario.
I can’t really think of a scenario where total status could be raised or lowered—because I think status is (obviously) always relative. Independent of coming up with intuition pumps I’d like to know if there are people who disagree with this—it is a shame your poll was ruined.
Lets say that humans have special circuits for figuring out if a person is more like the band leader or more like the band outcast. Human minds use these circuits to change their behavior towards that person. It seems plausible that those circuits can be ‘gamed’ , say people get into the habit of speaking badly about people who don’t exist, then perhaps everyone actually existing will seem high status.
Clever- and it seems like this could plausibly make everyone feel better about themselves (though, of course they’ll still feel bad when they compare themselves to even higher status people). Note though that this is like making someone popular by giving them imaginary friends—it’s not how the word is ordinarily used. But if this is what people have in mind by ‘raising net status’, fine, I don’t see anything implausible about it.
I define status to be “your ability to be treated favorably, all else being equal.” I regard bonding as a form of status—members of the in-group have more status than the outgroup. A group of three strangers on an island has collectively less status than the same group after they’ve bonded. Once they’ve bonded, they are all willing to do each other favors and treat each other nicely in ways that they weren’t willing to before. In my mind, this is entire point of status.
You can define status as “how much more ability to be treated favorably you have compared to other people,” but I don’t think that’s a useful definition. The word “status” has gain popularity particularly because it flexibly describes a wide array of social interactions.
Status SYMBOLS are often zero-sum (buying a big TV makes people want to come over to your house more often to watch football games, and this only works if your TV is bigger than other people’s). But those are only one form of status-gain.
(I spoke to less dazed in real life about this. Our conversation was the impetus for this thread)
I think that after multiple years of discussing the word status on this site, we BETTER start actually defining it. If there are disagreements as to the definition we need to get them out into the open, so that at the very least we can start mentally translating “Raemon-Status” and “Jack-Status”.
Luckily, we speak a natural language (English) here which lets us use words without having to define them each time we use them and instead refer to our collective understanding as English speakers to tell us what a word means. Conveniently, this collective understanding is routinely organized into books and databases consisting of words and their meanings. Now sometimes these definitions are ambiguous or different from each other and sometimes we use technical words so obscure they don’t appear in such databases. On occasion we may even decide to use a word in an unusual context. In these circumstances we better start defining terms.
Thankfully, the discussion of social status is not one of those cases.
Wikipedia: “In sociology or anthropology, social status is the honor or prestige attached to one’s position in society (one’s social position). It may also refer to a rank or position that one holds in a group, for example son or daughter, playmate, pupil, etc.”
Oxford dictionaries: “the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something:an improvement in the status of women high rank or social standing:those who enjoy wealth and status
Britannica which wikipedia plagiarized or vice versa: “social status, also called status, the relative rank that an individual holds, with attendant rights, duties, and lifestyle, in a social hierarchy based upon honour or prestige.”
Dictionary.com: “the position of an individual in relation to another or others, especially in regard to social or professional standing.”
I could go through anthropology and sociology papers and talk about how they use the word. I could quote Max Weber, too. I think that would be overkill, though. I’m open to an argument that this is “not what we really mean” when we use the word ‘status’ but I tend to assume people here are just using the regular English word… so you can see how I would have a hard time seeing how status could be non-relative.
I don’t consider our definitions exclusive—I consider mine to be an unpacking of the general one that explains what it actually means. “What is status?” “Your social position” seems like answering the teacher’s password—it doesn’t tell me what to actually predict yet. “What is social position?”, “Your ability to ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” gives me actual information to work with.
Social position occurs within governments (where status determines your ability to influence large section of a country) but also within small social circles (i.e. Queen Bee or Alpha Male status determines your ability to shape the course of conversations, influence the opinions of your group, decide what clothes are fashionable, etc). Telling good jokes is a legitimate way to gain status in social circles large and small.
Now, if the ONLY other thing that can shape the course of conversations, group opinions, or clothing fashionability was other people, then yes, that type of status would be zero sum. You wouldn’t be able to gain control of it without someone else losing control of it. But that is not the only factor at work. Clothing fashionability is impacted by the weather. One alpha can’t necessarily influence a large group to wear skimpy clothes during a snowstorm, but a collection of people who each have influence might be able to.
In the desert island case, building fires and shelters are hard work. In the scenario where everyone tells good jokes, each person doesn’t have any greater ability to influence the others against each OTHER, but they do all have the ability to influence the others against lethargy, hunger, or other factors.
If you want to unpack “social position”, “relative ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” is a much more plausible candidate.
You wrote:
You can define status as “how much more ability to be treated favorably you have compared to other people,” but I don’t think that’s a useful definition. The word “status” has gain popularity particularly because it flexibly describes a wide array of social interactions.
You don’t think it is a useful definition? (!) I could see an argument being made that it is less useful than ‘absolute ability to be treated favorably’ but how is it not useful at all? Even if it is more useful (and I’m not at all convinced a concept becomes more useful because it is broader) is that a reason to use it despite it straightforwardly contradicting the meaning usual English word (see all the instances of ‘rank’ and ‘relative’ in the above definitions). I guess this has become a definition debate which is obviously silly but as far as I can tell your definition just doesn’t match the way the word is used at all.
If you want to unpack “social position”, “relative ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” is a much more plausible candidate.
Given two perfect strangers in a post apocalyptic scenario, and two perfect strangers who soon realize they are both high ranking members of their respective tribes, I think the latter group will show more respect for each other, even though they have no one else to compare themselves to. (I will note that this is an empirical prediction which might be false. Anyone know if data exists on this?)
You don’t think it is a useful definition? (!) I could see an argument being made that it is less useful than ‘absolute ability to be treated favorably’ but how is it not useful at all?
I mostly agree with this, and should have worded it that way.
I think we need a word for each of these concepts. I’m not picky about which word gets used to mean what. But I still don’t think it’s automatically implied that status is relative by the traditional definition (“position” can be on an absolute or relative scale) but the word status gets used on Less Wrong in enough contexts that for our purposes, it’s probably more useful as the broader term.
Edit: Using status as the broad term also saves us the trouble of coming up with a new word, since we just say “relative status” whenever we mean that, and if we’re in a discussion that’s obviously about relative status it can probably be abbreviated anyway.
Given two perfect strangers in a post apocalyptic scenario, and two perfect strangers who soon realize they are both high ranking members of their respective tribes, I think the latter group will show more respect for each other, even though they have no one else to compare themselves to.
The strangers have more social power to mistreat the other without repercussions than the chiefs have.
I think we need a word for each of these concepts.
Disentangle ability to be treated favorably from relative social position. If every one of some nations has nuclear weapons sufficient for a MAD policy, we can expect them to not mistreat each other too harshly. If this is a post-apocalyptic scenario and each such nation was populated by robots and one human, in a meeting of the humans none would be necessarily be high status, but severe social harm would not be inflictable.
In a group of thousands of otherwise equal sadists with locked-in syndrome in which each could activate a shock collar on a random other sadist with their eyes, one wouldn’t say they are all low status.
That is really a grim hypothetical and I hope to think of a better one.
Also, I didn’t say that all status was absolute. Relative status definitely exists, and contributes more directly to the ability to mistreatment. I was simply disagreeing with the idea that status is relative all the time, either by definition or by example.
“Your ability to ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” gives me actual information to work with.
This ignores the unpleasant aspects: your ability to mistreat other people in your tribe, and your ability to not be mistreated. If one person gains the ability to be favorably treated, others are losing the ability to mistreat.
I think it still applies. I suspect that the two strangers who both start with some mutual respect would both tolerate slightly more rudeness than the ones without.
We’ve been talking about intelligence for a long time too, but I haven’t seen a good definition for it. Sometimes its better not to try to define things and just say “well here are some examples of things I mean when I say status”.
I can actually see some ways in which my definition might be problematic (I’m not sure if it adequately explains, say, friends who deliberately choose to go to a more expensive restaurant of equivalent quality).
But regardless, I think the question “is status relative?” is a fairly important one, and if we are having disagreements about that, we need to figure out why.
I agree that understanding status is useful. I’m not sure arguing about whether status is relative or not is very useful. I get the sense that most people accept that status is often relative or has large relative component, but intuitions about how human brains work will obviously differ a great deal. I think discussion of empirical work on status is likely to be much more useful.
I think assumptions about status being relatively lead directly to harmful interactions—beliefs that you must put others down in order to raise yourself up, or that you must choose between high status or other forms of morality.
I agree that most of the work is empirical, but that starting with “status is obviously relative, by definition” is a more dangerous assumption than “status is not inherently relative, by definition,” even if it did turn out that the most effective ways to gain status were relative. (It seems to me that, between the two statements, “status is obviously relative” is more guilty of arguing via definitions than “status isn’t necessarily relative.”)
I think assumptions about status being relatively lead directly to harmful interactions
Whenever I see a belief criticized for a reason other than it being wrong, I can’t help but think that the reason was chosen as a fallback and the arguer would have preferred to criticize it as wrong, had he or she been able to.
Especially among rationalists/”rationalists”/aspiring rationalists/”aspiring rationalists”.
I think assumptions about status being relatively lead directly to harmful interactions—beliefs that you must put others down in order to raise yourself up, or that you must choose between high status or other forms of morality.
This is how you cooperate, not (only) through denial. Defectors lose. Even in relative terms.
even if it did turn out that the most effective ways to gain status were relative.
That isn’t what “status is relative” is about at all.
Interesting moment of introspection—I’ve realized that I’m adopting an adversarial position and attempting to “win” this debate, and using words like “guilty” to describe the arguments of my adversaries.
a) isn’t it ironic. Don’cha think?
b) Would you consider me a higher or lower status member of this forum if I were to successfully argue my point in neutral tone or an adversarial one?
You can define status as “how much more ability to be treated favorably you have compared to other people,” but I don’t think that’s a useful definition.
I agree. I think something more like: status is ability to influence or resist influence for social, non-environmental reasons, not covered by other relationship categories such as lust or love—if you have a super-laser-of-doom-and-evil on the moon pointed at the Earth, you may have influence, but not status.
Two grim-trigger strategies are playing the iterated prisoner’s dilemma over a noisy telephone line. One mishears the other as saying “defect”, and they switch from both always cooperating to both always defecting.
So you’re saying two people, in a closed system, were able to influence the other to cooperate but are no longer able to, and “status” is the ability to influence, and ability to influence has been lowered?
If so, I think in this case “ability to influence” was for environmental rather than social reasons. The words on the line describe how the environment will react to an individual’s cooperation/defection.
I see status as more ability to influence or resist influence for social, non-environmental reasons—if you have a super-laser-of-doom-and-evil on the moon pointed at the Earth, you may have influence, but not status.
Maybe I have something different in mind when I say “status”. To the extent that an agent’s treatment of an opponent is based on some sort of persistent state, rather than on the opponent’s local behavior, I would say that that state is a form of status information. (Thus, one can have a status with a grim trigger, but not with a tit-for-tat.)
In humans (and I conjecture in approximately-winful strategies generally?), status tends to be one-dimensional, with one end eliciting “do nice things for this person” behavior, and the other end eliciting “do mean things to this person” behavior.
But they wouldn’t be constant given what you describe which makes me skeptical of the intuitions provoked. The fire is probably more likely to get built cooperatively on the island where the jokes got laughs—but that has to do with bonding and mood, not status.
Good point. What example of status changing can I use to best clarify I’m talking about just one variable?
I will try mentioning varying ways of gaining status, each with side effects, and specify that only one variable is considered. Hopefully someone can think of a single good scenario.
I can’t really think of a scenario where total status could be raised or lowered—because I think status is (obviously) always relative. Independent of coming up with intuition pumps I’d like to know if there are people who disagree with this—it is a shame your poll was ruined.
Lets say that humans have special circuits for figuring out if a person is more like the band leader or more like the band outcast. Human minds use these circuits to change their behavior towards that person. It seems plausible that those circuits can be ‘gamed’ , say people get into the habit of speaking badly about people who don’t exist, then perhaps everyone actually existing will seem high status.
Clever- and it seems like this could plausibly make everyone feel better about themselves (though, of course they’ll still feel bad when they compare themselves to even higher status people). Note though that this is like making someone popular by giving them imaginary friends—it’s not how the word is ordinarily used. But if this is what people have in mind by ‘raising net status’, fine, I don’t see anything implausible about it.
I define status to be “your ability to be treated favorably, all else being equal.” I regard bonding as a form of status—members of the in-group have more status than the outgroup. A group of three strangers on an island has collectively less status than the same group after they’ve bonded. Once they’ve bonded, they are all willing to do each other favors and treat each other nicely in ways that they weren’t willing to before. In my mind, this is entire point of status.
You can define status as “how much more ability to be treated favorably you have compared to other people,” but I don’t think that’s a useful definition. The word “status” has gain popularity particularly because it flexibly describes a wide array of social interactions.
Status SYMBOLS are often zero-sum (buying a big TV makes people want to come over to your house more often to watch football games, and this only works if your TV is bigger than other people’s). But those are only one form of status-gain.
(I spoke to less dazed in real life about this. Our conversation was the impetus for this thread)
Beware ‘defining’ things too early.
I think that after multiple years of discussing the word status on this site, we BETTER start actually defining it. If there are disagreements as to the definition we need to get them out into the open, so that at the very least we can start mentally translating “Raemon-Status” and “Jack-Status”.
Luckily, we speak a natural language (English) here which lets us use words without having to define them each time we use them and instead refer to our collective understanding as English speakers to tell us what a word means. Conveniently, this collective understanding is routinely organized into books and databases consisting of words and their meanings. Now sometimes these definitions are ambiguous or different from each other and sometimes we use technical words so obscure they don’t appear in such databases. On occasion we may even decide to use a word in an unusual context. In these circumstances we better start defining terms.
Thankfully, the discussion of social status is not one of those cases.
Wikipedia: “In sociology or anthropology, social status is the honor or prestige attached to one’s position in society (one’s social position). It may also refer to a rank or position that one holds in a group, for example son or daughter, playmate, pupil, etc.”
Oxford dictionaries: “the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something:an improvement in the status of women high rank or social standing:those who enjoy wealth and status
Britannica which wikipedia plagiarized or vice versa: “social status, also called status, the relative rank that an individual holds, with attendant rights, duties, and lifestyle, in a social hierarchy based upon honour or prestige.”
Dictionary.com: “the position of an individual in relation to another or others, especially in regard to social or professional standing.”
I could go through anthropology and sociology papers and talk about how they use the word. I could quote Max Weber, too. I think that would be overkill, though. I’m open to an argument that this is “not what we really mean” when we use the word ‘status’ but I tend to assume people here are just using the regular English word… so you can see how I would have a hard time seeing how status could be non-relative.
I don’t consider our definitions exclusive—I consider mine to be an unpacking of the general one that explains what it actually means. “What is status?” “Your social position” seems like answering the teacher’s password—it doesn’t tell me what to actually predict yet. “What is social position?”, “Your ability to ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” gives me actual information to work with.
Social position occurs within governments (where status determines your ability to influence large section of a country) but also within small social circles (i.e. Queen Bee or Alpha Male status determines your ability to shape the course of conversations, influence the opinions of your group, decide what clothes are fashionable, etc). Telling good jokes is a legitimate way to gain status in social circles large and small.
Now, if the ONLY other thing that can shape the course of conversations, group opinions, or clothing fashionability was other people, then yes, that type of status would be zero sum. You wouldn’t be able to gain control of it without someone else losing control of it. But that is not the only factor at work. Clothing fashionability is impacted by the weather. One alpha can’t necessarily influence a large group to wear skimpy clothes during a snowstorm, but a collection of people who each have influence might be able to.
In the desert island case, building fires and shelters are hard work. In the scenario where everyone tells good jokes, each person doesn’t have any greater ability to influence the others against each OTHER, but they do all have the ability to influence the others against lethargy, hunger, or other factors.
If you want to unpack “social position”, “relative ability to be treated favorably by people in your tribe” is a much more plausible candidate.
You wrote:
You don’t think it is a useful definition? (!) I could see an argument being made that it is less useful than ‘absolute ability to be treated favorably’ but how is it not useful at all? Even if it is more useful (and I’m not at all convinced a concept becomes more useful because it is broader) is that a reason to use it despite it straightforwardly contradicting the meaning usual English word (see all the instances of ‘rank’ and ‘relative’ in the above definitions). I guess this has become a definition debate which is obviously silly but as far as I can tell your definition just doesn’t match the way the word is used at all.
Given two perfect strangers in a post apocalyptic scenario, and two perfect strangers who soon realize they are both high ranking members of their respective tribes, I think the latter group will show more respect for each other, even though they have no one else to compare themselves to. (I will note that this is an empirical prediction which might be false. Anyone know if data exists on this?)
I mostly agree with this, and should have worded it that way.
I think we need a word for each of these concepts. I’m not picky about which word gets used to mean what. But I still don’t think it’s automatically implied that status is relative by the traditional definition (“position” can be on an absolute or relative scale) but the word status gets used on Less Wrong in enough contexts that for our purposes, it’s probably more useful as the broader term.
Edit: Using status as the broad term also saves us the trouble of coming up with a new word, since we just say “relative status” whenever we mean that, and if we’re in a discussion that’s obviously about relative status it can probably be abbreviated anyway.
The strangers have more social power to mistreat the other without repercussions than the chiefs have.
Disentangle ability to be treated favorably from relative social position. If every one of some nations has nuclear weapons sufficient for a MAD policy, we can expect them to not mistreat each other too harshly. If this is a post-apocalyptic scenario and each such nation was populated by robots and one human, in a meeting of the humans none would be necessarily be high status, but severe social harm would not be inflictable.
In a group of thousands of otherwise equal sadists with locked-in syndrome in which each could activate a shock collar on a random other sadist with their eyes, one wouldn’t say they are all low status.
That is really a grim hypothetical and I hope to think of a better one.
Also, I didn’t say that all status was absolute. Relative status definitely exists, and contributes more directly to the ability to mistreatment. I was simply disagreeing with the idea that status is relative all the time, either by definition or by example.
This ignores the unpleasant aspects: your ability to mistreat other people in your tribe, and your ability to not be mistreated. If one person gains the ability to be favorably treated, others are losing the ability to mistreat.
I think it still applies. I suspect that the two strangers who both start with some mutual respect would both tolerate slightly more rudeness than the ones without.
We’ve been talking about intelligence for a long time too, but I haven’t seen a good definition for it. Sometimes its better not to try to define things and just say “well here are some examples of things I mean when I say status”.
I can actually see some ways in which my definition might be problematic (I’m not sure if it adequately explains, say, friends who deliberately choose to go to a more expensive restaurant of equivalent quality).
But regardless, I think the question “is status relative?” is a fairly important one, and if we are having disagreements about that, we need to figure out why.
A bit curious why this post in particular was downvoted.
I agree that understanding status is useful. I’m not sure arguing about whether status is relative or not is very useful. I get the sense that most people accept that status is often relative or has large relative component, but intuitions about how human brains work will obviously differ a great deal. I think discussion of empirical work on status is likely to be much more useful.
I think assumptions about status being relatively lead directly to harmful interactions—beliefs that you must put others down in order to raise yourself up, or that you must choose between high status or other forms of morality.
I agree that most of the work is empirical, but that starting with “status is obviously relative, by definition” is a more dangerous assumption than “status is not inherently relative, by definition,” even if it did turn out that the most effective ways to gain status were relative. (It seems to me that, between the two statements, “status is obviously relative” is more guilty of arguing via definitions than “status isn’t necessarily relative.”)
Whenever I see a belief criticized for a reason other than it being wrong, I can’t help but think that the reason was chosen as a fallback and the arguer would have preferred to criticize it as wrong, had he or she been able to.
Especially among rationalists/”rationalists”/aspiring rationalists/”aspiring rationalists”.
This is how you cooperate, not (only) through denial. Defectors lose. Even in relative terms.
That isn’t what “status is relative” is about at all.
Interesting moment of introspection—I’ve realized that I’m adopting an adversarial position and attempting to “win” this debate, and using words like “guilty” to describe the arguments of my adversaries.
a) isn’t it ironic. Don’cha think?
b) Would you consider me a higher or lower status member of this forum if I were to successfully argue my point in neutral tone or an adversarial one?
I agree. I think something more like: status is ability to influence or resist influence for social, non-environmental reasons, not covered by other relationship categories such as lust or love—if you have a super-laser-of-doom-and-evil on the moon pointed at the Earth, you may have influence, but not status.
Two grim-trigger strategies are playing the iterated prisoner’s dilemma over a noisy telephone line. One mishears the other as saying “defect”, and they switch from both always cooperating to both always defecting.
I’m missing the connection.
So you’re saying two people, in a closed system, were able to influence the other to cooperate but are no longer able to, and “status” is the ability to influence, and ability to influence has been lowered?
If so, I think in this case “ability to influence” was for environmental rather than social reasons. The words on the line describe how the environment will react to an individual’s cooperation/defection.
I see status as more ability to influence or resist influence for social, non-environmental reasons—if you have a super-laser-of-doom-and-evil on the moon pointed at the Earth, you may have influence, but not status.
Maybe I have something different in mind when I say “status”. To the extent that an agent’s treatment of an opponent is based on some sort of persistent state, rather than on the opponent’s local behavior, I would say that that state is a form of status information. (Thus, one can have a status with a grim trigger, but not with a tit-for-tat.)
In humans (and I conjecture in approximately-winful strategies generally?), status tends to be one-dimensional, with one end eliciting “do nice things for this person” behavior, and the other end eliciting “do mean things to this person” behavior.
I finally got some criticism and I tried to correct the problems. Do you think the spirit of the post was preserved?