Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickd2001 | Hacker News Reader

nickd2001

I'd like to offer the viewpoint that seeking status is a way to unfortunately waste one's life and brain cycles. Not sure how economists model for the certain amount of people that "don't play the game" simply because there's more interesting things to do than compare themselves to others? There's a tradition amongst some Christians (and probably other religions too), that "we're all equal in the sight of God". Therefore, everyone is a somebody, and simultaneously, a nobody. People that contribute a lot, sure, in some sense they're more "valuable" to the rest of us. They've got a status worth having, but ironically, that's not what those people are seeking, usually its those who seek to help others and are fairly ego-less, that have the best status in other's eyes. I think what everyone should be doing is forget about status, feel happy in yourself, and try to do good for others. ;). Just my 2p.

View on HN

The irony is that graduating from the status game is one of the most rational things a person can do to fully realize their humanity, but the tyranny of the status game is argued to be inevitable by "rationalists" who'd then turn around and complain that people don't act rationally often enough in other situations. Your need for status is just another way that you're vulnerable to being manipulated by others, albeit highly indirectly. It is true: you need a certain amount of status to do things, but the amount is different for everyone.

Staying trapped in the "everything is status" mindset is just projection, ultimately.

As problem complexity grows, there is a need to assemble larger and larger groups to get anything done.

But the fundamental problem of group formation is - people are different. There is a lot of variety within the chimp troupe in terms of traits, needs, interests, values, upbringing, knowledge, skill etc etc so how do groups grow in size without breaking apart?

One way is status signalling. But ofcourse quite often the perks of status make the status signaller forget that entirely.

Veblens Theory of the Leisure Class was written hundred years ago. He felt science and tech would reduce the need for all the economic waste status signalling produced. But keeping groups together is harder than ever.

There's also tons of next-level thinking, i.e. seeking status via appearing to be good, or even by genuinely doing some helping. Charities, concerned celebrities visiting malnourished children in Africa etc.

I think there's a paradox, that only when you do things for others with genuinely no expectation of anything for yourself, do you actually get the most reward out of it (e:g in terms of feeling good about yourself or respected by others etc). As soon as you seek anything.. whoosh it's gone. As human beings we're all too often resistant to doing things for other people, or going without things, for no reward. We somehow get the idea of just looking after number one. In fact , the selfish thing to do is be unselfish, that's the paradox. Personally, (caveat - this is with religious convictions that others may not share) I believe God is both exasperated and amused by our behaviour. He says, "look, if you'd just all be nice to each other and stop being selfish, you know what you'd actually all be much happier.". But its like no-one wants to be the first person to be generous....

> There's a tradition amongst some Christians

A minority maybe, many religions like Catholicism have built in status hierarchies that are foundational to their core principles. You may be all equal under the sight of God, but some are more equal than others.

This could go wildly off-topic... but.. when you talk of Catholicism having status hierarchies, as someone from the Catholic tradition myself it seems to me that most (at least here in UK) do believe precisely in "everyone is equal in the sight of God". That is rooted in Catholic teaching actually. Maybe you're referring to women being treated as 2cnd class citizens? Which is indeed a massive problem. From experience discussing such things, most Catholics at least here in the UK seem to see absolutely no reason why women couldn't be priests, the powers-that-be just keep it the same because "it's always been that way", or they fear splitting the church over the issue. Which is not right, needs fixing, gets ever more embarrassing every day. You may also be referring to homophobia, which does exist among people in the church - although I dunno if its worse amongst believers than no-believers, just looks worse , more hypocritical / strident when done by someone who claims to believe in being nice to people. My view on homophobia is it stems from people being either being (a) secretly "scared" they're gay themselves, and not comfortable with that or, (b) actively using it as a shield to hide their own crimes (e:g Cardinal Pell delivered ultra conservative homophobic rants probably as a way to distract others from what he was up to behind closed doors leading to abuse conviction). Otherwise, why on earth would any straight person have any reason to be mean to someone that's gay or fear them. I know its all different in USA , there's a big strand of ultra conservative Catholics who probably do believe in hierarchy . Not sure they're actually following the Catholic faith though, or doing anything worthy of the title. Just like people in the Middle East killing each other are not following their religions, all of which officially preach peace.

I suspect it's almost impossible to escape the status game.

People who play the game of escaping ego often sadly get trapped in a different kind of status game. Think of monks chasing ever great asceticism. Humanists chasing moral purity. Fashion evaders seeking indie brands, thrift stores or other enterprises with the lowest marketing spend.

I’d have to agree. Almost by definition, social organisms can’t escape obsessing over hierarchy. Whether on the African savanna or the corporate cube farm, the most we can hope for are flatter org charts.

As stated elsewhere, flat org charts lead to informal hierarchies which adversely affects already marginalized groups.

Not sure if that's the answer.

do you have some references for that?

But to the authors point, if we allow everyone to subvert status enough and create their own subgroups, then eventually each person will either be at the top of their chosen status hierarchy, or they will be above average in enough subgroups that they’ll be content.

It reminds me of the mathematician’s saying:

“When in doubt invert, always invert”

Some people are visibly working harder for less reward in this game.

I think it is quite possible, but you have to be committed to it and you have to have a bit of contempt for other people's opinions about things that don't matter.

Probably the easiest way to do it is to try and live on as little money as possible, spending money on only things that can be logically justified. Of course you have to be honest with yourself, since self delusion in strong in humans.

I buy very simple clothes, no jewelry, the cheapest food, try not to own more than I need to and try to be rational about housing and a car.

It has the great benefit of not needing much money to live and the freedom that it brings. The rat race is a very real thing.

It doesn't really work if you have a family, or a certain kind of social life, but otherwise it's actually quite fun.

That all sounds like a good way to live :) And a very good idea for nature and the planet to have any chance of surviving humankind's consumption. You can make this work with a family, I feel. At least, we've managed this a bit so far. Although, its quite funny. Charity shops sell lots of excellent nearly new kids clothes. Our kids are fine with those, especially as they see it goes to a good cause and is a form of recycling. Last year my wife found a nice top for our daughter which turned out to be a posh brand. On a non-uniform day a schoolmate said "wow you've got that, you're so lucky" to which our daughter cheerfully replied it was like £1 in a charity shop. Which flummoxed her friend. It's like, that's somehow "not the thing to do" to buy this barely used item at a charity shop. I guess that's all about status? Somehow its low status to buy something at a charity shop even though its pragmatic? But then, increasingly in some countries, second-hand clothes are actually now becoming the fashionable thing to do. I offer this as an illustration of how utterly fickle it is as well. What's high status one month is low another, and vice versa. People are moving the goalposts all the time. Rationally, makes sense to avoid this game altogether.

Small "ancient" tribes are generally egalitarian. It's possible to escape status.

Is there any evidence for that?

I don't think about status at all.

dkjaudyeqooe (4445)

If you have ublock installed you can zap these html elements and stop being tempted to look at your social status report card every pageload.

  ! 2021-02-02 https://news.ycombinator.com
  ! news.ycombinator.com###me
  news.ycombinator.com##td:nth-of-type(3) > .pagetop
  news.ycombinator.com##.comhead > .score

I actually really like my social status score.

I used to be very insecure about my communication skills, intelligence, ability to make an impact on the world, etc. Seeing my score go far higher than I ever imagined it would go provides a nice moment of validation that maybe my voice is helpful or at least interesting to some people out there. It also acts as a reminder to continue to carry out the values that apparently got me the high score in the first place, and as a caution against saying things that I might regret.

It's also a hell of a dopamine kick to see it jump more than a few points at once.

I think what everyone should be doing is forget about status, feel happy in yourself, and try to do good for others. is essentially the Christian message.

I welcome a day when people who attempt to do good have more status than people who are famous for sex tapes, viral videos, or some other fad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com