Be wary of imitating high-status people who can afford to countersignal

I thought the cheapest Rolex is substantially more expensive. Am I wrong?

Isn’t this conflating status signal with lifestyle?

The wealthy have always enjoyed expensive lifestyles and hobbies. In and of itself, expensive hobby equipment is not a status signal (it can be, of course, if you plaster it all over your personal social media)

Expensive hobbies are not. I think they should be, but they're not.

There was a time, not that long time ago in which good clocks were expensive and expending 2ks on a good clock was similar to expending 2k on a laptop today, a functional, reasonable decision.

My uncle earned a much more expensive Rolex than 2k in a Golf tournament and wearing it nobody believed it was genuine, even a watchmaker could not differentiate it from sight, there are very good Chinese knockoffs for cheap anywhere.

Also, after quartz oscillator clocks, a 2k clock does not work better than a 100 one.

People spend their money on whatever they see fit. One of the great things of having money is having freedom in your life but few people knowing that you have it.

In places like Spain or France people do not admire you for having money, on the contrary they envy you, and you better not show off. Also gold diggers and interested parties like banks start to harass you all the time. And criminals what to take it from you by force.

Haha, don't forget the classic combo of the $10k Caesarstone countertop plus half a dozen blunt knives.

For example, if you aren't showing up in a $200k Maserati, your car had better be under $50k (maybe $70k with inflation). Only posers who aren't really into cars but want to show off their wealth spend $120k on a car.

For watches, the same thing happens: if you're wearing a watch less than $50k, it had better be under $500. Otherwise you probably don't care much about watches.

Clothing seems to be the same at many companies: you had better wear tailored suits and shirts or be less dressy than "business casual."

I think pg wrote an article on his blog about how suit wearing was for people who thought like conformists and obviously being a conformist was not for hackers. I am paraphrasing because I can't remember now exactly what he said. But I just think it was contempt of previously established people working in finance or law. Now, the largest companies in the US skew towards tech companies.

I don't know why that happens that newly successful people seem to dislike the symbols of the previous elite rather than just mind their own business. Wearing a suit to a tech company will probably get you ostracized even if you just like wearing suits. This is in spite of the claim that the hoodie culture is not concerned what you dress up in, in fact they are. Maybe you could call that counter counter-signalling. It's just like taking a large salary at a tech company instead of having a $1 salary and getting enormous options and stock payouts. Somehow taking a large salary is worse despite that being normal for CEOs previously.

That's not just status, it's got change over time mixed in.

always has been moon meme.

unless you're neveaux rich or stupid or both it is in your absolute interest not to show what you have. driving a Prius used to be that signal but today it has shifted. My direct boss was a Schenker heir (the freight forwarding company) and the only way he showed off is by living in a rental house (albeit manged by his management company so he essentially paid rent to himself), drove a Nissan, didn't spend unless you took a closer look (art purchases for his 4th wife) didn't brag with fancy dinners in Michelin star places (but certainly bragged to his wife about putting her on the map with her silly paintings as a wannabe artist - lol "Sex rules everything around me C.R.E.A.M get the money").

Only lower ranks criminals and new-rich idiots show what they have. Everyone else has learned the lesson: if you show it (the plebs and the IRS), they'll come for you.

Also all the people who're truly rich do NOT play by the same rules as the rest of you. YOU decide where, and how much tax you pay, if you have the cash to pay lawyers and accountants to insulate you from the Plebs.

The US is the biggest tax[1] haven in the world today forget the Hollywood propaganda about Cayman or Panama - only idiot cartels and Victor Bout use these jurisdictions but not the white collar crime lords ...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands

Or it's about signaling that you're "in the know" with the in-group.

I read some list from (I believe) the 1800s that listed the different vocabulary used by aristocratic vs. middle class English people. It wasn't anything fancy (e.g. graveyard = aristocrat, cemetery = middle class). But as soon as that list was published and the middle class strivers knew to imitate those parts of the dialect, I'm sure the aristocrats quickly deprecated those signals.

Or maybe they just like to cook and enjoy having good hardware?

Not everything is for signaling purposes. It's really cynical to start viewing everyone's personal expenditures as some sort of socially manipulative tactic. This is especially true when it comes to people's hobbies, where many of us are just trying to enjoy ourselves and appreciate having good hardware around.

This is basically the cost to add a second floor to your crappy home you bought a several years back because that’s all you could afford to buy in Seattle at the time. Probably even worse in some other cities.

There’s even a hot market for historical wristwatches. 2 million for a watch that would have been $100,000 10 years ago is not unheard of.

Yeah, I'm being a little glib there. But what they love is golf, tennis, violin lessons for kids. Yes, they own expensive golf clubs (and memberships) and tennis rackets and violins. But what they love is that they can slum it with a very inexpensive tennis racket or golf club or violin, whereas the expensive gear is useless in the hands of someone who hasn't had a lifetime of lessons that cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. Even if you have the money, you can't buy the technique, and people who play these sports/instruments can recognize instantly if you know what you're doing (even in movies, tennis, golf, and violin, faked technique is immediately recognizable). It helps a lot of your parents had money and trained you up in these things when you were a child.

As it turns out, this was an old Chinese saying a couple decades ago, where "cars" really meant bicycles.

(1) It was presented as a game. It seemed like a game.

(2) People like ritual. This was clearly ritual.

Even by not using ANY words and only having then children watch a person and then leaving them alone with the contraption would have gone differently. Some would likely have “played the game” because that is what we teach children. But at least some would have likely just gone for the treat.

In any case, it is an interesting thing to ponder!

I think it’s fairly obvious that if you gave the clear box test to a teenager or adult and said “get the treat out” they’d look at you funny and then many or most would just reach in and grab it. I think even in the black box, they’d probably look at it real hard and maybe try going straight for the treat after investigating the box a bit.

By contrast very young humans operate in “game mode” almost all the time, and are basically “playing along” with whatever game you put them in. It’s a lot of fun, and often silly.

So my question is, what about juvenile chimps? Do they also operate in game mode, or would they follow the adult chimp behavior of going straight for the reward?

are you sure about that?

(I don't remember this, my mother was hidden behind a one way mirror.)

I had some pretty severe co-ordination issues as a child, no learning related problems - but fuck knows who decided that I needed to be evaluated on both fronts.

Anyway this woman comes in to test me with one of those boxes with different shaped holes in the top, and a matching block for each hole.

I grab a random block and try to shove it in a hole into which it obviously does not fit - and keep trying with the same hole until the woman gets up and leaves in frustration (she'd been trying to hint that I should perhaps try another hole).

The moment she left I quickly solved the puzzle.

I think this was the worst mistake I’ve made to date.

Pure survivorship bias.

If facebook flopped zuck would have been back at university after a "sabatical" and would now be middle management in a cubicle at a consulting company.

But I get your point. Unfortunately there seems to be lots of kids in the the lower socio-economic classes that spend all their money on expensive sneakers, hoodies, and other luxury brand clothes. Spending $1k on a designer hoodie, when you make $15k / year, isn't the smartest financial decision - to put it mildly.

Now, to be clear, shepherding great work out of your team is a hallmark of a good manager. But if you don’t even know what “good” is your efforts are in vain and you’d be better offer handing that autonomy over to someone who does. You cannot verbally-abuse your way to greatness.

That video was super interesting but I'm not sure the conclusion is correct. In the experiment with the children an authority figure (including full medical suit) was put in front of them and told them "do these instructions".

The chimp wouldn't have that pressure. It's not quite the same experiment.

It would be interesting if you put 5 boxes in front of children and told them they had 1 minute to get as many sweets as they could, if they would still follow all the steps.

But the 'asshole boss' or authority figure archetype is an old one, from long before Steve Jobs, and it can be an effective motivational tool, although many of us, myself included, don't have the stomach for it. Obligatory pop culture example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elrnAl6ygeM

And not because he was in shorts, T-shirt and sandals, a respectable attire at the beach or pool, but not when other people are striving to present themselves at their best. Putting people down should never be fashionable.

poor: got to say you work hard when talking to middle class

middle class: got to say you work smart if you’re talking to upper class

upper class: got to say your work hard to peers, middle class, and poor, but reasons are different. for peers it’s because nihilism isn’t cool neither is being overly epicurean

everyone says the right narrative to the right people, no one really knows the truth

Is that really the case though? Because I see a lot of university buildings and foundations named after really wealthy people. That's hardly "whsipers".

Yes, a good friend of mine can afford to be a (rather poorly paid) journalist because said friend is in fact a millionaire when it comes to his inherited real-estate assets, but someone like me (my parents had to rely on subsistence agriculture until not that long ago) has to always have a decent-paying job available or else.

Again, for people on the other side of the fence is not tiring at all, we’re very much aware of it each and every day. It’s not a new thing either, reading Balzac means reading about people on each side of the has real money/has no real money fence.

I agree with you that most actors don't consciously make decisions based on how they will be perceived and instead just do things.

However, I don't think that stops other actors from, without thinking themselves, taking those actions as signals and judging others by those signals.

We as the actors being judged can choose to think through those things or not. Either way we're being judged by those "signals". And either way I'm judging others based on those signals.

I've read Sutherland's "Alchemy" book and that's not how I remember him framing signaling.

Long to short, while - to your point - we are not all intentionally signaling, we are as receivers of inputs are constantly looking for and translating random input into signals.

The point being, whether you like it or not, you're giving off signals. Be mindful, or not. But if you go with the latter then you might at times be doing yourself a disservice because we as humans self-generate signals.

https://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Surprising-Power-Ideas-Sense/...

p.s. I enjoyed the book. His is a very counter "conventional wisdom" mindset. That appeals to me.

You see "accidental countersignaling" from people who are generally oblivious to social cues, like folks with Aspergers or recent immigrants to a country, because the subtle feedback from other people doesn't register for them. These people tend to exist apart from the social reality and inhabit only economic and physical reality.

Articles (and comments) like this one are describing what's going on, not prescribing it. Basically nobody goes into a social situation thinking "How can I raise my social status?" The people who do come off as phonies, because the emotions involved operate very subtly and quickly and if it's not unconscious it's apparent to other people. But you can analyze the situation after the fact and describe what's going on, as well as try to train your unconscious offline to have better responses to the situation you were in.

Well forgetting the fact that neither of us can prove what we think about this I do believe it's a form of signaling. At least in the sense that someone who does not have status if (from my observation over the years) less likely to do things that could further confirm or lower their status.

For example growing up my mom had a 'cleaning lady'. That cleaning lady would insist that when my mom dropped her off it was not in front of her house but where her neighbors couldn't see that another woman was dropping her off (because that would imply she was cleaning houses). Likewise an employee of my father (factory/warehouse work) would always change out of their clothes and travel home in something much nicer. And not because the clothes were dirty either.

I dress in a t-shirt and dungarees everyday. When I was younger (and also in my own new business) I wore a suit. Sure times were different but for one thing now I don't need to prove anything.

I think what you are missing is that they are signaling whether they realize it or not. A signal is just a discernible phenomenon that is given meaning by observers. It doesn't have be intentional.

An example: social counter-signaling often arises naturally and unconsciously. Think about the rich person who would rather not be recognized as such, or the person who is a bit carefree because they are beyond the grind. They don't consciously adopt a 'carefree persona', they just feel more at ease because of their life situation.

People can be broadly separated into 2 categories in terms of cognitive wiring for personality psychology. "People people" and "Things* people". (Theres a lot of overlap between interest in aesthetics and interest in ideas here too, but a separate discussion) These map rather neatly onto other things like introversion and agreeableness, but parking that for a moment. Additionally, "People people" can learn about 'Things' and "Things people" can learn about 'People'.

Things people (so lets say, your bog standard software eng.) And people people (communications director) do have one thing in common, which is assuming they understand how the other thinks. What is irritating minutae to one, is the essence of importance to the other. Talking about the superiority of UTF8, Linux or Vim might come across as repulsively "iamverysmart" to "People people".

Observing social signals as signals, and the various hierachical cues that inform and are informed by them is the essense of being interested in other people. We all adhere to varying degrees of social order. To disparage the rules is perilous and risks ostracisation (in the olden days, this meant you didnt reproduce and died).

This dichotomy is responsible for a lot of the mechanics of organisational hierachies. Not everything is a math problem.

It's also a characteristic of con artists of the SBF/Holmes etc. variety. Patrick Boyle's latest video, "Why We Trust Fraudsters!" explores this in some depth:

https://youtu.be/Wx51CffrBIg

I was telling my dad that we were going to try a new restaurant. "They churn their own butter," I pointed out excitedly. And my dad--who grew up in a village in Bangladesh--is like "why would they churn their own butter? You can buy it in a store."

People convey all sorts of messages through subtle signaling. They have an image they try to cultivate, even if only unconsciously. For example, people on the west coast wear hoodies and T-shirts to signal a sort of casualness. Meanwhile, I don't wear hoodies or T-shirts because I'm worried people might mistake me for a day laborer.

I don't think most people who say they're above it all really are. Maybe they are. Or maybe they're not as self-aware of their own motivations. Or maybe they're in a cultural bubble where they can't recognize certain social currents as signaling.

I can assure you that posting on a public forum that you think signaling is beneath you is signaling.

Following your heart can also be a great filter. If you maintain some level of compassion and integrity, you will create a product that customers want.

A poor person depends on a diverse array of skills, relationships and resources.

A rich person depends on their account balance. They focus on that, basically in exclusion of all else.

It makes the way they see and behave really different.

It explains "wealthy miser" syndrome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7Rid9cI6AI

Nonsense; almost the defining characteristic of being rich is that you don't need to think about money; if you need some it's there.

In earlier days, we understood very little of the technology we had, even on the highest expert level. A chimpanzee that does not imitate but only watches to pick up the elements it understands would never be able to become bronze age, no matter the abundance of ore and fuel. The human on the other hand apparently has the ability to trust the unknown and try.

I'm not a misanthrope, and still enjoy the company of people. But. I used to status-jockey and be unconsciously and consciously obsessed with all of that, no matter the arena/ context/ subculture, etc. But doing a lot of inner work and unearthing what my core drives/ motives/ needs were, a lot of that status-jockeying and wanting to be in the in-group to feel this existential sense of acceptance and security started to come into focus, and a lot of old friendships became revealed as insecurity/ fear based (on both parties). And trying to introduce new paradigms to old friends became sort of the last-ditch effort to try to salvage relationships that were built on shaky foundation.

It also made me look back on when people tried to speak truth into my beliefs when I was still caught-up in wanting to be relevant and seen as high-status & outwardly respectable, and how I couldn't hear what people were saying.

I still wanna give people a chance, though, but accept them for where they communicate they are at and leave em alone if they're deep in that status-chasing game, and have no desire to explore getting out of that mess. There are still people out there who want to enjoy life and find meaning on other terms than getting validation from an anonymous audience/ jury that they believe has the power to approve or reject them.

Look at how many were considered good but still haven’t gone public.

I don’t think it is that difficult to tell the difference between the loving enthusiast (with say a gaming PC they built that looks like dreck using unpopular parts, with judicious use of expense), and the mere status chaser (with say a stupid expensive gaming PC with clichéd blingken lights, plus an enthusiasm for high-status parts and ranking behaviours). If engineers, find the true engineer types, rather than the wannabes?

I could imagine it is difficult in some suburbs that mostly have plastic people, but you said you are more worldly than that. There are poseurs everywhere, but there are definite patterns of behaviour that you can use to filter them out, regardless of their clique.

And then there's Vint Cerf.

I work in the tech industry, and although I don't usually wear a suit, I often show up in a spezzato, a pair of pants and a jacket of a different fabric/color. Nothing too flashy, but well put together. And I think that's the counter signal nowadays: show up looking good, feeling good, being what we want to be.

― John Steinbeck, Travels With Charley: In Search of America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian

Even after reading that I don't actually know what this woman is well-known for.

Anyway, the point here is that I’ve been fortunate to meet a number of really talented people at various stages of their careers, and many of the most talented ones really are humble. They act that way because they don’t need to be boastful about their work in the first place, and lack of humility is a really good way to make people resent you instead of helping you, which is counterproductive when you’re good at what you do. It also signals that you aren’t confident in your work, or that you’re overconfident and not careful. Both can be red flags.

Don’t know why I’m writing this. I just wish someone had explained these things to me when I was starting out in my career.

edit: to please the pedants, I should have said "many rich people", as to not imply "all". My fault.

the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect described by Crichton comes to mind here.

It is quite potent when media talk about crypto and usually involves evident logical fallacies that are not dissimilar to Orwellian double-speak.

Like the idea that cash is freedom so crypto supporters also support no cash limits, even though you can't buy crypto with cash and crypto cannot be converted directly to cash and people who won the crypto lottery keep their money in a good old bank when a good old investment manager handles them to buy good old banking products using good old FIAT money taxed by the good old government, because "freedom propaganda" is the best tool to sell a fraud to the ignorant.

But media don't write about it, I don't know why.

Yes, it's incredibly risky but at least it has a better chance than playing the lottery. Like Nassim Taleb says, bet on things with a limited downside and unlimited upside. And if you don't try, nothing will happen.

Seems reductionist to equate buying low and selling at peak to buying a lottery ticket. But so it does to claim hard work has been the main reason why financial investors profit

https://xkcd.com/1827/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

Counter-signalling: Signalling that you are adopting a sub-optimal strategy.

Gate-keeping: Creating an environment that lower-class people can't survive in. This is more forceful.

No but the trauma that makes you do heroin can produce beautiful lyrics. (Or so I'm told.)

I believe that’s “cargo cult”-ing.