What Lesswrongers may not realize is how bothering to change your behavior at all towards other people is inherently status lowering. For instance, if you just engage in an argument with someone you’re telling them they’re important enough to use so much of your attention and effort—even if you “act” high status the whole time.
People of high status assume their status generally cannot be affected by people of low status, at least in casual encounters (i.e. not when a cop pulls over your Maybach for going 200). To use an extreme example, when the President of the US goes into a small-town diner and chats with the “regular folks” there, he’s not lowering his status. He’s signaling, “My status is so high, I can pal around with whoever I want.” Yes, this raises the status of those he talks to. (It also raises the President’s status.)
If people of high status thought they had something to lose in engaging with someone of low status, they wouldn’t engage with them. Of course, that would make them look afraid to lose status, which in itself would lower their status. So they engage with people of lower status in order to make it seem like status isn’t important to them, which is a high status signal. In short, engaging with people signals higher status than ignoring them.
I wonder what will be in the random theory hat next time I reach in!
To use an extreme example, when the President of the US goes into a small-town diner and chats with the “regular folks” there, he’s not lowering his status. He’s signaling, “My status is so high, I can pal around with whoever I want.” Yes, this raises the status of those he talks to. (It also raises the President’s status.)
This is not the best example because a president’s institutionally granted power is a function of how likable and popular he is with the people. Imagine, however, that the president was more of a dictator and didn’t need his citizen’s approval. In this case, he’d be lowering his status by chatting with regular folk. He’s signaling he still cares enough to chat with them despite having this unalterable power over them. Consequently, the citizens believe they must have some power over the dictator (however little).
This is not the best example because a president’s institutionally granted power is a function of how likable and popular he is with the people.
The President of the US is probably the highest status person in the world. The fact that roughly 20% of Americans voted for Obama is far from the only thing that gives him that status. Keep in mind that it takes extraordinary public disapproval to affect a President; Bush 43′s lowest approval rating was one point higher than Nixon’s. On the other hand, Clinton’s lowest rating was 12 points higher than that, and he was impeached. Public approval is not very meaningful to the Presidency.
Imagine, however, that the president was more of a dictator and didn’t need his citizen’s approval. In this case, he’d be lowering his status by chatting with regular folk.
Or he’d be signaling that he’s a benevolent dictator who, while not requiring the approval of the regular folk, wants them to think he’s on their side. Having popular support would obviously raise a dictator’s status, domestically and internationally. The people might think that their dictator wasn’t such a bad guy if he was willing to talk to them. Anecdotally, when a dictator goes to ground and doesn’t make public appearances, it’s usually a sign that his regime is in trouble. Don’t underestimate what a high-status move it is to be secure about your status.
You’re confusing a low status move that makes you more likable with a high status move.
The dictator is implying the citizens have something he wants when he bothers to talk to them. Don’t even consider yet the consequences of such an action. Just realize he’s making a move that reliably signals that the citizens have some power over him.
We tend to like people who lower their status to us and raise our own; especially if they’re coming from a high status position. So it could be that the status gained from people liking Obama for chatting with them is greater than the status lost from chatting with them. But this doesn’t change the fact that, on it’s own, chatting with people is status lowering.
So you no longer believe that reactivity in an interaction is “The strongest status signals”?
If that’s the question, then no. Whether or not the reactive move of talking to the citizens ultimately led to Obama’s rise in status is not relevant. The citizens being reactive by liking him more is the indicator that his status is raised, not him chatting with them.
No, I meant what I said. In case it was too subtle, I was pointing out that you are shifting the goal posts, quietly backing off from your original strong claim as if you had never made it.
Your concept of “reactivity” seems about as useful as phlogiston. It can explain anything in retrospect. “The citizens being reactive by liking him” is nearly defining reactivity as assigning status to, weakly cloaked by the intermediary of “liking him”. Yes, assignment of status is a strong indicator of assignment of status. But that is a tautology, not a useful theory about the particular world we live in.
Your concept of “reactivity” seems about as useful as phlogiston. It can explain anything in retrospect.
It is misuse of the concept that seems to be the problem here more so than the concept itself. I’m not sure about ‘strongest’ but being nonreactive, particularly not making reactions that are extreme or reveal emotion, is an obvious status signal. As a concept it may be somewhat clearer than the related ‘insecure’ label that is often used as both a description and an attack.
This is really a large part of my point. I think the misuse of the concept is the result of trying to prove that it is stronger than it actually is. I agree that, if defined more clearly, there may be status signals associated with reactivity, but these would not, in general, be strong than other types of status signals.
Gonna get downvoted for this, but I don’t believing counter-signaling is a useful abstraction—there’s just signaling, period. The reason counter-signaling (as conventionally defined) may raise your status is because it displays indifference or less reactivity.
People of high status assume their status generally cannot be affected by people of low status, at least in casual encounters (i.e. not when a cop pulls over your Maybach for going 200). To use an extreme example, when the President of the US goes into a small-town diner and chats with the “regular folks” there, he’s not lowering his status. He’s signaling, “My status is so high, I can pal around with whoever I want.” Yes, this raises the status of those he talks to. (It also raises the President’s status.)
If people of high status thought they had something to lose in engaging with someone of low status, they wouldn’t engage with them. Of course, that would make them look afraid to lose status, which in itself would lower their status. So they engage with people of lower status in order to make it seem like status isn’t important to them, which is a high status signal. In short, engaging with people signals higher status than ignoring them.
I wonder what will be in the random theory hat next time I reach in!
This is not the best example because a president’s institutionally granted power is a function of how likable and popular he is with the people. Imagine, however, that the president was more of a dictator and didn’t need his citizen’s approval. In this case, he’d be lowering his status by chatting with regular folk. He’s signaling he still cares enough to chat with them despite having this unalterable power over them. Consequently, the citizens believe they must have some power over the dictator (however little).
The President of the US is probably the highest status person in the world. The fact that roughly 20% of Americans voted for Obama is far from the only thing that gives him that status. Keep in mind that it takes extraordinary public disapproval to affect a President; Bush 43′s lowest approval rating was one point higher than Nixon’s. On the other hand, Clinton’s lowest rating was 12 points higher than that, and he was impeached. Public approval is not very meaningful to the Presidency.
Or he’d be signaling that he’s a benevolent dictator who, while not requiring the approval of the regular folk, wants them to think he’s on their side. Having popular support would obviously raise a dictator’s status, domestically and internationally. The people might think that their dictator wasn’t such a bad guy if he was willing to talk to them. Anecdotally, when a dictator goes to ground and doesn’t make public appearances, it’s usually a sign that his regime is in trouble. Don’t underestimate what a high-status move it is to be secure about your status.
You’re confusing a low status move that makes you more likable with a high status move.
The dictator is implying the citizens have something he wants when he bothers to talk to them. Don’t even consider yet the consequences of such an action. Just realize he’s making a move that reliably signals that the citizens have some power over him.
We tend to like people who lower their status to us and raise our own; especially if they’re coming from a high status position. So it could be that the status gained from people liking Obama for chatting with them is greater than the status lost from chatting with them. But this doesn’t change the fact that, on it’s own, chatting with people is status lowering.
So you no longer believe that status signals of interaction are “The strongest status signals”?
Do you mean:
If that’s the question, then no. Whether or not the reactive move of talking to the citizens ultimately led to Obama’s rise in status is not relevant. The citizens being reactive by liking him more is the indicator that his status is raised, not him chatting with them.
No, I meant what I said. In case it was too subtle, I was pointing out that you are shifting the goal posts, quietly backing off from your original strong claim as if you had never made it.
Your concept of “reactivity” seems about as useful as phlogiston. It can explain anything in retrospect. “The citizens being reactive by liking him” is nearly defining reactivity as assigning status to, weakly cloaked by the intermediary of “liking him”. Yes, assignment of status is a strong indicator of assignment of status. But that is a tautology, not a useful theory about the particular world we live in.
It is misuse of the concept that seems to be the problem here more so than the concept itself. I’m not sure about ‘strongest’ but being nonreactive, particularly not making reactions that are extreme or reveal emotion, is an obvious status signal. As a concept it may be somewhat clearer than the related ‘insecure’ label that is often used as both a description and an attack.
This is really a large part of my point. I think the misuse of the concept is the result of trying to prove that it is stronger than it actually is. I agree that, if defined more clearly, there may be status signals associated with reactivity, but these would not, in general, be strong than other types of status signals.
What about countersignaling? ;)
Gonna get downvoted for this, but I don’t believing counter-signaling is a useful abstraction—there’s just signaling, period. The reason counter-signaling (as conventionally defined) may raise your status is because it displays indifference or less reactivity.
Downvoted for that.
Counter-signalling is a useful abstraction, so long as it is understood that it is a strict subset of ‘signalling’.
Fair enough.