I was wondering to what extent you guys agree with the following theory:
All humans have at least two important algorithms left over from the tribal days: one which instantly evaluates the tribal status of those we come across, and another that constantly holds a tribal status value for ourselves (let’s call it self-esteem). The human brain actually operates very differently at different self-esteem levels. Low-status individuals don’t need to access the parts of the brain that contains the “be a tribal leader” code, so this part of the brain is closed off to everyone except those with high self-esteem. Meanwhile, those with low self-esteem are running off of an algorithm for low-status people that mostly says “Do what you’re told”. This is part of the reason why we can sense who is high status so easily—those who are high status are plainly executing the “do this if you’re high-status” algorithms, and those who are low status aren’t. This is also the reason why socially awkward people report experiencing rare “good nights” where they feel like they are completely confident and in control (their self-esteem was temporarily elevated, giving them access to the high-status algorithms) , and why in awkward situations they feel like their “personality disappears” and they literally cannot think of anything to say (their self-esteem is temporarily lowered and they are running off of a “shut up and do what you’re told” low-status algorithm). This suggests that to succeed socially, one must trick one’s brain into believing that one is high-status, and then one will suddenly find oneself taking advantage of charisma one didn’t know one had.
Translated out of LessWrong-speak, this equates to “A boost or drop in confidence can make you think very differently. Take advantage of confidence spirals in order to achieve social success.”
Your “running different code” approach is nice… especially paired up with the notion of “how the algorithm feels from the inside”, seems to explain lots of things. You can read books about what that code does, but the best you can get is some low quality software emulation… meanwhile, if you’re running it, you don’t even pay attention to that stuff as this is what you are.
Yes, IME that’s very close to the truth. I think that’s the “less strong version” of this comment that people were talking of.
The Blueprint Decoded puts it as ‘when you [feel low-status], you don’t give yourself permission to [do high-status stuff]’.
(I also seem to recall phonetician John C. Wells claiming that it’s not like working-class people don’t know what upper-class people speak like, it’s just that they don’t want to speak like that because it’d sound too posh for them.)
I’ve had a similar idea that perceived self status was the primary difference between skill/comfort at public speaking. I think the theory might be a good first approximation, but that there is a lot more going on too.
A possible reason rejection therapy has positive spillover effects. When, contra your expectations, people agree to all sorts of weird requests from you, it signals to you that you are high status.
Translated out of LessWrong-speak, this equates to “A boost or drop in confidence can make you think very differently. Take advantage of confidence spirals in order to achieve social success.”
Note that the flip side is that (perception of personal) high status can make you stupid, for analogous reasons to the ones you give here.
Yeah, I plan on investigating to see how much support this theory has going for it sometime in the future, but obviously it’s easier to sit around in your chair thinking and coming up with theories than it is to actually do research. d: The article you linked to looks like a great starting point though, thank you!
Based on what I know about double-blind tests with alcohol… I’d guess what it does for most people is give them an excuse :) But hey, a placebo effect is still an effect.
I think it’s a grave mistake to equate self-esteem with social status. Self-esteem is an internal judgment of self-worth; social status is an external judgment of self-worth. By conflating the two, you surrender all control of your own self-worth to the vagaries of the slavering crowd.
Someone can have high self-esteem without high social status, and vice versa. In fact, I might expect someone with a strong internal sense of self-worth to be less interested in seeking high social status markers (like a fancy car, important career, etc.). When I say “a strong internal sense of self-worth”, I guess I mean self-esteem that does not come from comparing oneself with others. It’s the difference between saying “I’m proud of myself because I coded this piece of software that works really well” and “I’m proud of myself because I’m a better programmer than Steve is.”
From what I can tell, the internal kind of self-worth comes from having values, and sticking to them. So if I value honesty, hard work, ability to cook, etc., then I can be proud of myself for being an honest hard-working person who knows how to cook, regardless of whether anyone else shares these traits. Also, I think internal self-worth comes from completing one’s goals, or contributing something useful to the world, both of which explain why someone can be proud of coding a great piece of software.
(Sometimes I wonder whether virtue ethicists have more internal motivation/internal self-worth, while consequentialists have more external motivation/external self-worth.)
(It seems that people of my generation (I’m 23) have less internal self-worth than people have had in the past. If this is true, then I’m inclined to blame consumerist culture and the ubiquity of social media, but I dunno, maybe I’m just a proto-curmudgeon.)
Anyway, your theory about there being a “high self-esteem algorithm” and a “low self-esteem algorithm” seems like a reasonable enough model. And the use of these algorithms may very well correlate with social status. I just don’t think the relationship is at all deterministic, and an individual can work to decouple them in his own life by developing an internal sense of self-worth.
I don’t think this phenomenon is unique to status or self-esteem though. I suspect that people have different cognitive algorithms for all the roles they play in society. I have a different behavior-algorithm when interacting with a significant other than I do when interacting with my coworkers, for instance. Of course status/social dominance/etc. has a huge impact on which role you’ll play, but it’s not the only thing influencing it.
I think people are probably most comfortable in social roles which feel “in line” with (one of) their identities.
Last thing: I think that social status should not be equated with a direct dominance relationship between two people. Social status seems like a more pervasive effect across relationships, while direct social dominance might play a bigger role in deciding which algorithm to use. If someone big and threatening gives you an order (like “hand me your wallet”), it might activate the “Do what you’re told” algorithm regardless of your general social status.
Social status would seem to correlate with how frequently you are the dominant one in social interactions. But it’s not always the case. A personal servant of the king might have very high status in society, but always follow the “Do what you’re told” algorithm when he’s at work taking orders from the king.
(As a last note, this is why I’m really concerned about the shift from traditional manufacturing jobs to service industry jobs. Both “car mechanic” and “fast food employee” are jobs associated with a lower socioeconomic class, but the car mechanic doesn’t spend all day being subservient to customers.)
I think it’s a grave mistake to equate self-esteem with social status. Self-esteem is an internal judgment of self-worth; social status is an external judgment of self-worth. By conflating the two, you surrender all control of your own self-worth to the vagaries of the slavering crowd. Someone can have high self-esteem without high social status, and vice versa. In fact, I might expect someone with a strong internal sense of self-worth to be less interested in seeking high social status markers (like a fancy car, important career, etc.).
Yeah, I was using the term self-esteem in a specific sense to mean “the result of some primitive algorithm in the brain that attempts to compute your tribal status”. I tried to find some alternative term to call the result of this algorithm to prevent this exact confusion, but everything I could come up with was awkward. Maybe “status meter”? I agree with you in that I think there’s only a moderate correlation between the result of this algorithm and a person’s self-worth as it’s usually understood.
I just don’t think the relationship is at all deterministic, and an individual can work to decouple them in his own life by developing an internal sense of self-worth.
I don’t really agree with this, assuming that I’m right in reading you as saying “A low-status person can hack their brain into running off the high-status algorithm by developing a strong sense of self-worth.” At least it’s not true for me personally. To be completely honest, I think I’m very intelligent and creative, and I do spend a sizeable chunk of every day working on my major life goals, which I enjoy doing. But at the same time, I would definitely say I’m running off of a low-status algorithm in most of my interactions.
And even self-esteem purely in social interactions doesn’t really seem to help my “status meter”. For example, when I lost my virginity, I thought that it would make talking to girls much easier in the future. But this didn’t really happen at all.
Last thing: I think that social status should not be equated with a direct dominance relationship between two people. Social status seems like a more pervasive effect across relationships, while direct social dominance might play a bigger role in deciding which algorithm to use. If someone big and threatening gives you an order (like “hand me your wallet”), it might activate the “Do what you’re told” algorithm regardless of your general social status.
Yeah, now that I think about it, this seems like the weakest link in my argument. I imagine most people fluidly switch from low status to high status algorithms on a regular basis depending on who they’re interacting with. But maybe there’s also a sort of larger meter somewhere in the brain that maintains a more constant level and guides long-term behavior? I don’t know.
Thank you for your response, though—this is definitely the most interesting response I’ve gotten for this comment. :)
I was wondering to what extent you guys agree with the following theory:
All humans have at least two important algorithms left over from the tribal days: one which instantly evaluates the tribal status of those we come across, and another that constantly holds a tribal status value for ourselves (let’s call it self-esteem). The human brain actually operates very differently at different self-esteem levels. Low-status individuals don’t need to access the parts of the brain that contains the “be a tribal leader” code, so this part of the brain is closed off to everyone except those with high self-esteem. Meanwhile, those with low self-esteem are running off of an algorithm for low-status people that mostly says “Do what you’re told”. This is part of the reason why we can sense who is high status so easily—those who are high status are plainly executing the “do this if you’re high-status” algorithms, and those who are low status aren’t. This is also the reason why socially awkward people report experiencing rare “good nights” where they feel like they are completely confident and in control (their self-esteem was temporarily elevated, giving them access to the high-status algorithms) , and why in awkward situations they feel like their “personality disappears” and they literally cannot think of anything to say (their self-esteem is temporarily lowered and they are running off of a “shut up and do what you’re told” low-status algorithm). This suggests that to succeed socially, one must trick one’s brain into believing that one is high-status, and then one will suddenly find oneself taking advantage of charisma one didn’t know one had.
Translated out of LessWrong-speak, this equates to “A boost or drop in confidence can make you think very differently. Take advantage of confidence spirals in order to achieve social success.”
Yep. As I understand it, this is part of standard PUA advice.
Your “running different code” approach is nice… especially paired up with the notion of “how the algorithm feels from the inside”, seems to explain lots of things. You can read books about what that code does, but the best you can get is some low quality software emulation… meanwhile, if you’re running it, you don’t even pay attention to that stuff as this is what you are.
tldr: Fake it ’till you make it.
Yes, IME that’s very close to the truth. I think that’s the “less strong version” of this comment that people were talking of.
The Blueprint Decoded puts it as ‘when you [feel low-status], you don’t give yourself permission to [do high-status stuff]’.
(I also seem to recall phonetician John C. Wells claiming that it’s not like working-class people don’t know what upper-class people speak like, it’s just that they don’t want to speak like that because it’d sound too posh for them.)
Related research: Mark Leary’s sociometer theory and Amy Cuddy on power posing.
I’ve had a similar idea that perceived self status was the primary difference between skill/comfort at public speaking. I think the theory might be a good first approximation, but that there is a lot more going on too.
A possible reason rejection therapy has positive spillover effects. When, contra your expectations, people agree to all sorts of weird requests from you, it signals to you that you are high status.
Note that the flip side is that (perception of personal) high status can make you stupid, for analogous reasons to the ones you give here.
Have you considered looking into the psychology literature? http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power/
Yeah, I plan on investigating to see how much support this theory has going for it sometime in the future, but obviously it’s easier to sit around in your chair thinking and coming up with theories than it is to actually do research. d: The article you linked to looks like a great starting point though, thank you!
Onwards to find a combination of electrical impulses or chemicals one can pump into the brain to keep it permanently in high-status mode!
“Dutch courage”? :-)
O.O
Hell, that’s actually a reasonable avenue of research! Clearly for some people, alcohol does something to their brain which flips that switch.
Time to drag in a few hundred street drunkards for a clinical study!
Based on what I know about double-blind tests with alcohol… I’d guess what it does for most people is give them an excuse :) But hey, a placebo effect is still an effect.
Way simplified; people are not only complicated, but different from each other.
If one stripped away the big claims and just left a correctly-sized claim about human brains, that would be better.
I think it’s a grave mistake to equate self-esteem with social status. Self-esteem is an internal judgment of self-worth; social status is an external judgment of self-worth. By conflating the two, you surrender all control of your own self-worth to the vagaries of the slavering crowd.
Someone can have high self-esteem without high social status, and vice versa. In fact, I might expect someone with a strong internal sense of self-worth to be less interested in seeking high social status markers (like a fancy car, important career, etc.). When I say “a strong internal sense of self-worth”, I guess I mean self-esteem that does not come from comparing oneself with others. It’s the difference between saying “I’m proud of myself because I coded this piece of software that works really well” and “I’m proud of myself because I’m a better programmer than Steve is.”
From what I can tell, the internal kind of self-worth comes from having values, and sticking to them. So if I value honesty, hard work, ability to cook, etc., then I can be proud of myself for being an honest hard-working person who knows how to cook, regardless of whether anyone else shares these traits. Also, I think internal self-worth comes from completing one’s goals, or contributing something useful to the world, both of which explain why someone can be proud of coding a great piece of software.
(Sometimes I wonder whether virtue ethicists have more internal motivation/internal self-worth, while consequentialists have more external motivation/external self-worth.)
(It seems that people of my generation (I’m 23) have less internal self-worth than people have had in the past. If this is true, then I’m inclined to blame consumerist culture and the ubiquity of social media, but I dunno, maybe I’m just a proto-curmudgeon.)
Anyway, your theory about there being a “high self-esteem algorithm” and a “low self-esteem algorithm” seems like a reasonable enough model. And the use of these algorithms may very well correlate with social status. I just don’t think the relationship is at all deterministic, and an individual can work to decouple them in his own life by developing an internal sense of self-worth.
I don’t think this phenomenon is unique to status or self-esteem though. I suspect that people have different cognitive algorithms for all the roles they play in society. I have a different behavior-algorithm when interacting with a significant other than I do when interacting with my coworkers, for instance. Of course status/social dominance/etc. has a huge impact on which role you’ll play, but it’s not the only thing influencing it.
I think people are probably most comfortable in social roles which feel “in line” with (one of) their identities.
Last thing: I think that social status should not be equated with a direct dominance relationship between two people. Social status seems like a more pervasive effect across relationships, while direct social dominance might play a bigger role in deciding which algorithm to use. If someone big and threatening gives you an order (like “hand me your wallet”), it might activate the “Do what you’re told” algorithm regardless of your general social status.
Social status would seem to correlate with how frequently you are the dominant one in social interactions. But it’s not always the case. A personal servant of the king might have very high status in society, but always follow the “Do what you’re told” algorithm when he’s at work taking orders from the king.
(As a last note, this is why I’m really concerned about the shift from traditional manufacturing jobs to service industry jobs. Both “car mechanic” and “fast food employee” are jobs associated with a lower socioeconomic class, but the car mechanic doesn’t spend all day being subservient to customers.)
Yeah, I was using the term self-esteem in a specific sense to mean “the result of some primitive algorithm in the brain that attempts to compute your tribal status”. I tried to find some alternative term to call the result of this algorithm to prevent this exact confusion, but everything I could come up with was awkward. Maybe “status meter”? I agree with you in that I think there’s only a moderate correlation between the result of this algorithm and a person’s self-worth as it’s usually understood.
I don’t really agree with this, assuming that I’m right in reading you as saying “A low-status person can hack their brain into running off the high-status algorithm by developing a strong sense of self-worth.” At least it’s not true for me personally. To be completely honest, I think I’m very intelligent and creative, and I do spend a sizeable chunk of every day working on my major life goals, which I enjoy doing. But at the same time, I would definitely say I’m running off of a low-status algorithm in most of my interactions.
And even self-esteem purely in social interactions doesn’t really seem to help my “status meter”. For example, when I lost my virginity, I thought that it would make talking to girls much easier in the future. But this didn’t really happen at all.
Yeah, now that I think about it, this seems like the weakest link in my argument. I imagine most people fluidly switch from low status to high status algorithms on a regular basis depending on who they’re interacting with. But maybe there’s also a sort of larger meter somewhere in the brain that maintains a more constant level and guides long-term behavior? I don’t know.
Thank you for your response, though—this is definitely the most interesting response I’ve gotten for this comment. :)