4 ms·

Status seeking, being inherently zero-sum, is a pursuit that will only leave you unfulfilled in the end. In fact, I think the very fabric of human existence is

by tabeth 10y ago

Status seeking, being inherently zero-sum, is a pursuit that will only leave you unfulfilled in the end. In fact, I think the very fabric of human existence is predicated on this inequality that status emphasizes. As for myself, I try to fight against it by refusing to share information that's not contextually relevant. It kind of sucks sometimes, but I think it's the "status-free" way to do something. Living in MA, I always manage to be amazed as some Ivy-League graduates slip the fact that they attended an Ivy League school into a conversation that has nothing to do with their education or pedigree.

cortesoft 10y ago
Did you read the article? The whole point was that status is NOT inherently zero sum, since everyone uses different criteria to determine their own status.
- zeteo 10y ago
  Even if you replace one definition of status with many (seven billion?), each one of these new definitions is itself zero sum.
- tabeth 10y ago
  Yup. I disagree with it, obviously. I don't think the author gives sufficient evidence to prove that it's not zero sum. Can everyone be of high status? The answer is obviously no. Like I mentioned before, the very idea of status to begin with is relative. If status is not zero sum, that means that everyone can be of "high status". I believe such a thing is nonsensical, and so, impossible.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    The argument he makes, that you have apparently missed, is that which values constitute status are different for different people. I think you're low status because you can't crush 300kg deadlifts like me, you think I'm low status because I don't appreciate classic music like you. Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the things they're good at.
    - tabeth 10y ago
      I didn't miss that argument. I just believe it is irrelevant. Status is still zero sum. Creating arbitrary criteria for status does not mean said criteria are not zero sum. As for the hypothetical situation you mentioned -- no, everyone would not be high status. Say you had three people who liked running, football and computer science respectively. It may be true that they do not "compete" with each other for status, but assuming they're in a system in which there is at least one other player in their respective fields: running, football and computer science, status would still be zero sum. In the situation in which they are the only player, that would mean the status that they are deriving is not coming solely from what they are doing, because if it was, there simply would be no status to begin with. --- Of course this premise that you can get your status solely from a single thing with no residual effects from the "greater life" or context itself is pretty ridiculous. So in the case with the running and football, they're both athletes, so even though they're different sports, they still share the status pool. Similarly, computer science and athletics are both school extracurriculars. Expand out until you get to humanity. Zero sum persists.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        No, I think you're missing the beauty of the system, which is that although there might be a global average status that is truly zero-sum (you can't increase your global rank without pushing someone else down a position), if status is indeed multidimensional, then every person can search for some community or group that will give them status within that community. In in practice that is the case. Most people in the world won't care to have this particular discussion with me, but here in HN I can find like-minded people and hopefully get sweet posting karma. That allows people to focus less on the global zero-sum status game, and more on finding a community or group that they can usefully contribute to.
        literallycancer 10y ago
        What use is a high status in a (hypothetical) group with effectively zero influence? One's status is only as useful/important as the people who ascribe it to them.

by tabeth 10y ago

cortesoft 10y ago

Did you read the article? The whole point was that status is NOT inherently zero sum, since everyone uses different criteria to determine their own status.

zeteo 10y ago
Even if you replace one definition of status with many (seven billion?), each one of these new definitions is itself zero sum.
tabeth 10y ago
Yup. I disagree with it, obviously. I don't think the author gives sufficient evidence to prove that it's not zero sum. Can everyone be of high status? The answer is obviously no. Like I mentioned before, the very idea of status to begin with is relative. If status is not zero sum, that means that everyone can be of "high status". I believe such a thing is nonsensical, and so, impossible.
- peteretep 10y ago
  The argument he makes, that you have apparently missed, is that which values constitute status are different for different people. I think you're low status because you can't crush 300kg deadlifts like me, you think I'm low status because I don't appreciate classic music like you. Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the things they're good at.
  - tabeth 10y ago
    I didn't miss that argument. I just believe it is irrelevant. Status is still zero sum. Creating arbitrary criteria for status does not mean said criteria are not zero sum. As for the hypothetical situation you mentioned -- no, everyone would not be high status. Say you had three people who liked running, football and computer science respectively. It may be true that they do not "compete" with each other for status, but assuming they're in a system in which there is at least one other player in their respective fields: running, football and computer science, status would still be zero sum. In the situation in which they are the only player, that would mean the status that they are deriving is not coming solely from what they are doing, because if it was, there simply would be no status to begin with. --- Of course this premise that you can get your status solely from a single thing with no residual effects from the "greater life" or context itself is pretty ridiculous. So in the case with the running and football, they're both athletes, so even though they're different sports, they still share the status pool. Similarly, computer science and athletics are both school extracurriculars. Expand out until you get to humanity. Zero sum persists.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      No, I think you're missing the beauty of the system, which is that although there might be a global average status that is truly zero-sum (you can't increase your global rank without pushing someone else down a position), if status is indeed multidimensional, then every person can search for some community or group that will give them status within that community. In in practice that is the case. Most people in the world won't care to have this particular discussion with me, but here in HN I can find like-minded people and hopefully get sweet posting karma. That allows people to focus less on the global zero-sum status game, and more on finding a community or group that they can usefully contribute to.
      - literallycancer 10y ago
        What use is a high status in a (hypothetical) group with effectively zero influence? One's status is only as useful/important as the people who ascribe it to them.