Hacker News Reader

Comment by sanderjd | Hacker News Reader

> An example from Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland: If you’re a top executive, turning up to work on a bicycle is a high-status activity because it was a choice and not a necessity. But if you work at Pizza Hut, turning up on a bike means you can’t afford a car.

It must be so tedious to live having internalized this perspective on people. The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd. Most people who ride bikes to work just like to ride bikes and find it to be a convenient way to get to work, they aren't giving a single thought to how it plays in some status game that nobody else they interact with is thinking about either.

I find this whole genre incredibly unrelatable.

View on HN

Most of this is unconscious for the general population, the consequence of mimicry + social cues + emotional rewards. The person who shows up to Pizza Hut on a bicycle isn't thinking about social status consciously. Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again. The top executive who shows up on a bicycle gets no such feedback, and so they keep doing it.

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.

> Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again.

No they don't! Is my point. This is almost entirely a story made up by this bizarro world of smart people who think themselves into circles (and aren't working at pizza hut). Nobody cares how someone gets themselves to their job at pizza hut; the other people working there aren't thinking about this, the person riding the bike there isn't thinking about this. This is just people like us with too much time on our hands to write substacks and debate silly things on internet message boards constructing castles in the sky.

> Articles (and comments) like this one are describing what's going on, not prescribing it.

I recognize that it is attempting to describe what's going on. I am saying that I think it is failing to accurately describe what's going on.

Check out the song "No Scrubs" by TLC for another angle on the same topic. It's a real phenomenon, not just something made up by nerds on substack.

Some people are blissfully checked out enough from social competition dynamics that they don't notice it.

Yeah. Off the top of my head I can think two pieces of popular media - The 40 Year Old Virgin and Cobra Kai - that had a scene where a guy lucks out and meets an attractive woman, asks her out on a date, the woman asks when he'll pick her up, he awkwardly tells her he has a bike and not a car, she makes a "what the hell?!" expression and then says how she guesses she'll be the one picking him up.

We can say that society exaggerates the importance of some of these things, or that they're less of an issue in certain circles. Or that it's easy to psyche yourself out about those issues and miss many of the opportunities around you. All true. But the issues actually exist, and aren't just from the imagination of a small group of people that overthink things.

Equally, it's possible to go even further in the "bicycle" direction to end up ahead of those with cars. Here's a delightful example: Rubberbandits "Horse Outside" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8 (NSFW at one point if you are listening closely and can understand the Irish accent, but unlikely to actually offend). The beginning might be boring, but it's short, so stick with it.

Riding your bike to work (what OP is talking about) and not having a car to pick up your date (what TLC were singing about) are two pretty different things. Coworkers don't care how you get to work. Dates care bacause they don't want to have to take the bus home afterwards.

Haha this is the only illuminating reply so far :)

You seem to be in denial that this phenomenon exists. I’d suggest reading _The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are._ Quite insightful. Status matters more than you’re letting on, and the perception of it is subconscious. No one (hopefully) is actively making an effort to look down on someone for riding their bike to their job at Pizza Hut - but many subtle things get registered by humans around us every day whether you or they are aware of it.

Thank god I‘m not living in a city with money as a first value. People would look down on you here for taking a car to your job if you can use a bike.

Which is the exact same phenomenon with the signals reversed.

So cycling is high-status because most people do it? I can assure you that has nothing to do with high-status. You just can‘t break down everything into status-games.

Missed the point by a mile.

Because?

From my perspective, it looks like you are in denial that this phenomenon doesn't exist. (Actually what I would say is weaker than that: what I think is not that stuff like this isn't a thing at all, but that it is ridiculously overblown by clever people who find it interesting to have this weird perspective on human nature.)

> The person who shows up to Pizza Hut on a bicycle isn't thinking about social status consciously. Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again

This is not how social dynamic at Pizza Hut works.

Yeah, I feel like some of these commenters have never worked a minumum wage job in their lives.

> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd

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.

That's an odd take on the butter scenario. The obvious answer to your dad's question is "because although churning your own butter is not necessary, it can make a fresher and more interesting-tasting product than mass produced butter you buy at a store". When I look for restaurants that churn their own butter, I'm not looking to show off my status as someone who can afford unnecessary labor, I am actually "just doing things"; I am just looking for interesting and tasty food with interesting and tasty butter, I'm not trying to cultivate an image of myself as a foodie or rich person or avoiding being mistaken for a day-laborer.

I don't know why you've re-framed it into a status signal. Did you really value churning your own butter as a pure status signal and not for the benefits of artisinal butter?

It's both.

To that dad, making your own butter was not a cultural signal showing your dedication to getting good flavor from butter, it just meant you were poor. If you could buy butter at the store, you were rich.

As someone who grew up in a second world country, things like making your own butter or having your own chickens were just a sign of poverty, not a signal of distinct taste.

That's not a status signal, it has practical non-status value. It can be fresher and taste better. You don't need to be upper or middle class to enjoy the taste of self-made butter, anyone, including the dad, can enjoy it. I'm not trying to imply that I have a higher status because I prefer the taste of artisanal butter. Just saying that out loud sounds absurd to just about anyone. What, poor/low-status people can't taste artisanal butter cultures?

Poor people in Western countries where even the poor buy supermarket produce will sometimes comment on the poor quality of modern mass market produce. You don't need to be in a different class or playing status games to taste the difference. If I look for an artisanal food, it's because it tastes better.

Edit: probably a more direct rebuttal is that the accusation is "They have an image they try to cultivate, even if only unconsciously" which means the person intends to signal who they are. Saying something is a "sign of poverty" doesn't mean anyone is cultivating an image or playing status games. It's not a game or a message to be visibly poor.

> For example, people on the west coast wear hoodies and T-shirts to signal a sort of casualness.

Again, no, they don't. I don't want to be too categorical here, I'm sure some people do this to signal something. But the vast majority of people wearing hoodies and t-shirts are just wearing comfortable clothes because they like to.

You find it unrelatable (and most commenters on this website will too.)

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.

This people-people vs. things-people dichotomy is an interesting theory. Did you read this somewhere or is this something you deduced?

Commonly discussed https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

This is a blatant false dichotomy and a dehumanizing one at that.

Could you expand? I don't agree but I don't know what you are refuting.

It comes across as an obsession with image-management, rather than with skill-development or something similarly practical and useful. While there's some need for taking care of one's appearance (poor personal hygiene, for example, is unpleasant for the people around you), putting this at the top of the list of things to worry about doesn't seem very healthy.

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

> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things.

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.

> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things.

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.

> His is a very counter "conventional wisdom" mindset. That appeals to me.

This is basically what I see going on here, and what I mean by "the iamverysmart crowd" (which to be clear: I am a part of). We overindex on this kind of counter conventional wisdom because it's more interesting. But I think it's more often the case that the boring conventional wisdom is closer to the mark.

You'd have to read the book.

> It must be so tedious to live having internalized this perspective on people. The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd.

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.

Agreed. He is just placing observations of real phenomena into a model. It's a bit like with economics. Prices "signal" all sorts of things that the entity setting the prices may not well be aware of.

Sure, and as in economics, some models are not good ones. I think the OP is a poor model.

That example is also super geographically narrow. In a lot of Europe it'd just be normal to ride a bike to work, no matter what the social or economic status of the person. In Australia where I am people would assume you're really into cycling as a sport, or really care about the environment (thankfully infrastructure is improving so eventually hopefully it gets to the more 'just normal' level). I don't think anybody would assume somebody who cycles to work is 'poor' here in any job though!

It’s not tiring at all, it’s just becoming acutely aware of the day-to-day socio-economic realities.

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.

Your examples are not "signaling".

A rich person being a poorly paid journalist because they want to and can afford to isn't signaling, they're just doing something they want to do and which they can afford to do. Very very few people do such things simply for the sake of appearances.

You (and me, for what it's worth) always having to have a decent-paying job available or else is also not "signaling", it just is what it is, we have to work jobs because we have to work jobs, there isn't a status meta-game to it, it's just how we afford life.

It's the mindset of looking at things like your poorly paid journalist example, and thinking "that person is signaling" rather than "that person wants to be a journalist" that I find tedious and unrelatable.

I don’t think the author writes about the “in your face” signaling, because nobody does that anymore once a certain high socio-economic status is reached (mostly by birth-related accidents), but about the “implicit”, for lack of a better term, signaling. Which most of the people the OP talks about certainly do in abundance. In other words I think the author talks mostly about that “implicit” signaling.

This "implicit signaling" sounds indistinguishable from people just doing the things they choose to do on the direct merits of those things. My whole point is that this whole meta game of signaling status is way overblown. I just don't think the vast majority of people live this way at all.

> It must be so tedious to live having internalized this perspective on people. The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling"

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

This is one of my main frustrations with the whole "signaling" discourse. It's self referential; nobody can point out that it's silly without it just being more evidence that it isn't silly. It's an emperor's new clothes situation.

What about riding a $10,000 bike to work?

Are there 10k commute bikes? I doubt people take 10k pro road bikes to work

There are people who do.

Tho they worry so much about it getting stolen I think they enjoy biking overall less than they would a bike suitable for just hopping on and biking around to different places.

If someone can afford to roll up to work on a bike that expensive, they are probably not worried about it getting stolen. Specifically, they either likely have somewhere to lock it up, or can afford to replace it (and/or have it insured). Make no mistake, rocking up to work on your Factor/S-Works/Cervelo/etc is a flex, either deliberately (look at my boutique, expensive bike, peasants), or subconsciously ("oh yeah, my bike? Yeah picked it up the other day, know the guy that owns the shop").

I have many biking acquaintances with darned expensive bikes and they are singularly unwilling to just bike to the lunch place leaving it locked to a parking sign pole. Diaclaimer: Pre covid data, now we are WFH

If you count electric commuters you can get above $10k easy.

These: https://www.stromerbike.com/en/models/stromer-st7-launch-edi...

Starting at USD 13 400.

I ride a $5k road bike to work :-).

Usually closer to $5k but yes. I had coworkers who did this all the time.

To be fair - these guys love riding. So, ride what you enjoy.

> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com