Why do people not punish useless status-seeking behavior? People rightly respond warmly to productive status-enhancing behavior, such as including people in conversation, fishing out common interests, and telling entertaining stories. But people also frequently reward outright bragging, cocky attitudes, and social aggressiveness—which to me are obviously done with status in mind, have no value to anyone else, and are pretty uncorrelated with the productive kinds of status behavior.
Since status is zero sum, why aren’t other people more proactive in noticing, being annoyed by, and socially punishing such behavior? Are people not consciously aware of these types of behavior, which can be trained to be more or less automatic? Do they assume that swaggerers might have social clout to match their personalities and are afraid of having them as enemies?
Why do people not punish useless status-seeking behavior?
They do, whenever such behavior seems like it’s bound to fail. However, when it looks like it will succeed (and thus bring high status to whoever is practicing it), an attempt to punish would mean a declaration of war against someone of high status, which is usually not a smart move.
Do they assume that swaggerers might have social clout to match their personalities and are afraid of having them as enemies?
Often yes, as explained above, but it’s usually not done consciously. Most status-related behaviors are instinctive, and the conscious mind only invents rationalizations for them (which can be of many different kinds).
Because, believe it or not, it’s often hard to tell the difference, especially if you know about mind projection fallacy. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Plus most people avoid creating a confrontation because that also could put them in a negative light. (Not only do you have to think what the other person is doing is bad, but the majority of other people have to think that as well, for you to get any value out of the confrontation.)
How ought I distinguish telling entertaining stories (which, on your account, is a productive activity that I would be right to respond warmly to) from bragging (which, on your account, is a valueless activity uncorrelated with productivity that I would be right to be annoyed by)?
Totally subjective, of course! But behaviors at both extremes are instantly identifiable. Crudely, prosocial stories actually entertain, self-seeking stories tend to make the teller look good. Savvy people, of course, can do both simultaneously.
Isn’t your impression that people aren’t punishing unproductive status seeking based on a difference in this subjective evaluation, then? Or do you think that people tolerate bragging even if they are not entertained by it?
I agree, and that would imply that today’s environment favors acting high status. And in fact I have a pet theory that the increase in urbanization and mobility in, say, the 1900s have led to a shift to more socially aggressive short-term status posturing behaviors (vs. carefully cultivating a reputation long-term.) This accounts, among other things, for the rise of the “self-esteem” movement as well as the recent rise of pickup artistry, which in its initial forms was nothing more than a way to rachet up your apparent status, unsustainably, for the short term, and was therefore dependent on urban anonymity. Susan Cain agrees with the timeline: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9439
So this explains why people are playing high status these days. It doesn’t explain why other people often don’t react badly to status plays.
How exactly do you imagine “reacting badly” to someone?
There are two basic ways to put down a person: a personal attack, or a coordinated group attack.
A personal attack is reasonable only if you think you win, and even then your personal benefits should outweigh the possible costs (which are always non-zero). In an ancient environment, the alpha male would beat the pretender badly, and any accidental damage to the alpha male would be just a necessary cost for maintaining his position.
In today’s environment, we have laws. But we also have people who break the laws. You should not attack the person physically, because that is illegal; but if you attack the person verbally, there is always a chance that they will counterattack physically. (If you are in an environment where some kind of physicall attack is acceptable, still: you attack them with fists, they may counterattack with a knife.) So the risks of confrontation are high. You also have to care about signalling—even if punishing people with harmful behavior brings a net gain, the fact that you decided to do the punishment, exposes you to a possible intra-group attack. Some people will have different models of reality: they will say that what you did was even worse than what the other person was doing.
The traditional choice for average people is a coordinated group attack. In a village, it is easy to coordinate. Just wait until the person leaves the room. Then carefully discuss your opinion (of them acting high-status while not being so) with your friends. If everyone agrees, you know you have a group support, and you know you didn’t miss something that the others could have noticed. Next time the person comes, they will find themselves with a low status.
In a big town this mechanism breaks, because people are not meeting regularly in the same setting. Someone unknown comes, acts high-status, leaves, and you may never see them again, or never again in the presence of exactly the same people. So you can’t coordinate a group attack. Also you have much less information about the person, than you would have in an ancient environment.
You would have to find a good strategy for “reacting badly” to socially agressive people and be sure that people around you share your definition and agree with your strategy. Otherwise you will be considered agressive, and people you personally know may start to avoid you.
Since status is zero sum, why aren’t other people more proactive in noticing, being annoyed by, and socially punishing such behavior?
Prisoner’s dilemma/tragedy of the commons. Deflating X’s status seeking benefits everyone (except X and his allies), but the costs of doing so are born by the person doing the deflating.
If someone has a negative effect on a social interaction through frivolous status games, I’ll: A) leave, if I can’t stand it, and don’t want to embarrass my friend who has a connection with the someone, or realize challenging them will have more negative an impact; B) tough it out, if challenging them will discomfort my friend(s) or have more of a negative impact; C) challenge them on their behavior by inquiring after why they are engaging in the frivolous behavior. Often I’ll decide challenging them won’t be worth it for me, as I’ll find it unlikely the someone’s response to my challenge will sufficiently entertain me.
I think some might have a latent association of either high-status or extremely low-status with such people, and are either intimidated or don’t find them worth wasting time on. I base this thought on experience and answers to questions that I can’t remember in detail.
Why do people not punish useless status-seeking behavior? People rightly respond warmly to productive status-enhancing behavior, such as including people in conversation, fishing out common interests, and telling entertaining stories. But people also frequently reward outright bragging, cocky attitudes, and social aggressiveness—which to me are obviously done with status in mind, have no value to anyone else, and are pretty uncorrelated with the productive kinds of status behavior.
Since status is zero sum, why aren’t other people more proactive in noticing, being annoyed by, and socially punishing such behavior? Are people not consciously aware of these types of behavior, which can be trained to be more or less automatic? Do they assume that swaggerers might have social clout to match their personalities and are afraid of having them as enemies?
They do, whenever such behavior seems like it’s bound to fail. However, when it looks like it will succeed (and thus bring high status to whoever is practicing it), an attempt to punish would mean a declaration of war against someone of high status, which is usually not a smart move.
Often yes, as explained above, but it’s usually not done consciously. Most status-related behaviors are instinctive, and the conscious mind only invents rationalizations for them (which can be of many different kinds).
Because, believe it or not, it’s often hard to tell the difference, especially if you know about mind projection fallacy. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Plus most people avoid creating a confrontation because that also could put them in a negative light. (Not only do you have to think what the other person is doing is bad, but the majority of other people have to think that as well, for you to get any value out of the confrontation.)
How ought I distinguish telling entertaining stories (which, on your account, is a productive activity that I would be right to respond warmly to) from bragging (which, on your account, is a valueless activity uncorrelated with productivity that I would be right to be annoyed by)?
Totally subjective, of course! But behaviors at both extremes are instantly identifiable. Crudely, prosocial stories actually entertain, self-seeking stories tend to make the teller look good. Savvy people, of course, can do both simultaneously.
Isn’t your impression that people aren’t punishing unproductive status seeking based on a difference in this subjective evaluation, then? Or do you think that people tolerate bragging even if they are not entertained by it?
In a tribal environment lying about status carries higher risks.
I agree, and that would imply that today’s environment favors acting high status. And in fact I have a pet theory that the increase in urbanization and mobility in, say, the 1900s have led to a shift to more socially aggressive short-term status posturing behaviors (vs. carefully cultivating a reputation long-term.) This accounts, among other things, for the rise of the “self-esteem” movement as well as the recent rise of pickup artistry, which in its initial forms was nothing more than a way to rachet up your apparent status, unsustainably, for the short term, and was therefore dependent on urban anonymity. Susan Cain agrees with the timeline: http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/9439
So this explains why people are playing high status these days. It doesn’t explain why other people often don’t react badly to status plays.
How exactly do you imagine “reacting badly” to someone?
There are two basic ways to put down a person: a personal attack, or a coordinated group attack.
A personal attack is reasonable only if you think you win, and even then your personal benefits should outweigh the possible costs (which are always non-zero). In an ancient environment, the alpha male would beat the pretender badly, and any accidental damage to the alpha male would be just a necessary cost for maintaining his position.
In today’s environment, we have laws. But we also have people who break the laws. You should not attack the person physically, because that is illegal; but if you attack the person verbally, there is always a chance that they will counterattack physically. (If you are in an environment where some kind of physicall attack is acceptable, still: you attack them with fists, they may counterattack with a knife.) So the risks of confrontation are high. You also have to care about signalling—even if punishing people with harmful behavior brings a net gain, the fact that you decided to do the punishment, exposes you to a possible intra-group attack. Some people will have different models of reality: they will say that what you did was even worse than what the other person was doing.
The traditional choice for average people is a coordinated group attack. In a village, it is easy to coordinate. Just wait until the person leaves the room. Then carefully discuss your opinion (of them acting high-status while not being so) with your friends. If everyone agrees, you know you have a group support, and you know you didn’t miss something that the others could have noticed. Next time the person comes, they will find themselves with a low status.
In a big town this mechanism breaks, because people are not meeting regularly in the same setting. Someone unknown comes, acts high-status, leaves, and you may never see them again, or never again in the presence of exactly the same people. So you can’t coordinate a group attack. Also you have much less information about the person, than you would have in an ancient environment.
You would have to find a good strategy for “reacting badly” to socially agressive people and be sure that people around you share your definition and agree with your strategy. Otherwise you will be considered agressive, and people you personally know may start to avoid you.
Prisoner’s dilemma/tragedy of the commons. Deflating X’s status seeking benefits everyone (except X and his allies), but the costs of doing so are born by the person doing the deflating.
If someone has a negative effect on a social interaction through frivolous status games, I’ll: A) leave, if I can’t stand it, and don’t want to embarrass my friend who has a connection with the someone, or realize challenging them will have more negative an impact; B) tough it out, if challenging them will discomfort my friend(s) or have more of a negative impact; C) challenge them on their behavior by inquiring after why they are engaging in the frivolous behavior. Often I’ll decide challenging them won’t be worth it for me, as I’ll find it unlikely the someone’s response to my challenge will sufficiently entertain me.
I think some might have a latent association of either high-status or extremely low-status with such people, and are either intimidated or don’t find them worth wasting time on. I base this thought on experience and answers to questions that I can’t remember in detail.