http://greenlightwiki.com/improv/Status
start reading Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias, he's an economics professor who posts a lot about signaling.
Theater/acting related metaphors and ideas are pretty central to the way I am developing the series... the next piece is shaping up to be even more theater-informed.
Overcoming Bias is a good reco -- I used to read it regularly, but (pot-kettle complaint here...:)) I couldn't keep up with the length of some of the stuff, especially by Yudkowsky. Hansen is thankfully briefer.
Venkat
One thing that confuses me is when it's strategic to act high status, and when it's strategic to act low status. For example, sometimes, when you need something from someone - do you want to raise their status, and make them like you? Or do you want to convey high status, so they will want to associate with you? Or should you try to juggle raising your status and then lowering it, in order to achieve the illusion of parity?
E.g. Selling to a customer, getting a job, getting help with something in the workplace. . .
Somebody has got to have written something about this. Please help.
the original. so lucid I doubt it will ever be dethroned as the best. hmm, can't find an online version right now even though I know multiple sites have a plain text version. anyone have a link?
a direct answer: I personally think it's better to act high status the vast majority of the time, only acting lower status when it is absolutely required. when I started doing this people's reaction to me immensely improved (night and day difference).
Maybe I'll do some experiments.
Something else I am interested in is how social/contextual status subconsciously sabotages people in the context of sport or business.
It's not low status unless you overdo it. Everyone enjoys validation for what they do, and while some people get more praise than they want for some things they do ("Hey, Michael Jordan, great game!"), there are other parts of them that are starving. People are not monolithic, they're made of many facets.
One example from the book was of a guy who built theater seats trying to get a deal with a bigwig from Kodak. No one ever got to meet with Mr Bigwig for more than 5 minutes, and Mr. Theater had to wait months for his 5 min appt. When he went in, Bigwig was gruffly resistant to a sales pitch, but Theater first complimented his fine wood paneled office. That disarmed Bigwig and got him talking about how he used to really care about carpentry and craftsmanship but has been taken over too much by his work. Two hours of conversation, no mention of the theater, and next week Bigwig ordered the chairs for his new theater fro Mr Theater. Complimenting Bigwig's business acumen or wealth would have had no (or probably negative) effect, but there was another part of him that was starved for recognition.
Enough rambling, go read the book! You can find a pdf online if you poke around.
anyhoo. the main thing I took from the book in combination with everything I've learned about behaviorism and cognitive bias leads me to believe that the underlying trick is to bolster people's internal narratives. everyone constructs a narrative of their life in which they're the hero, validating this narrative will win you loyalty like you wouldn't believe as deep down, it's a major part of what everyone wants.
One of the reasons this book is easier to digest then a lot of its modern equivalents is that because it is old. It's easier to seperate fad from truth. It evokes less troublesome emotional responses for the same reason that the Trojan War evokes less troublesome emotional responses then the war in Afghanistan. Listening seems to highlight that.
http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/entry/offers/partnerPromoti...