4 ms·
The problem with that argument is that status isn't determined by the person seeking it, it's determined by those deciding whether to mate with the status seeke
by curun1r 10y ago
The problem with that argument is that status isn't determined by the person seeking it, it's determined by those deciding whether to mate with the status seeker. That's where our hardwired impulses toward status seeking derive from...our need to perpetuate the species.
That doesn't mean that it's necessarily zero sum, but it means we're not completely in control of framing it the way that you and the article are suggesting. But you are right that there are different dimensions of status because different people value different characteristics. Some people are attracted to strong men that can lift 300 pounds and others prefer the refinement of a knowledge of classical music. But if you choose to define your status to far from the societal norms, you won't find others that agree with that framing and you'll be isolated out of the gene pool.
This is somewhat of an oversimplification and we use status for more than just mate selection, but our dimensions for status seeking are still based on how we want to attract sexual partners.
- peteretep 10y ago> The problem with that argument You haven't actually outlined any problems with that argument, you've simply stated that status in the eye of the beholder isn't perfectly aligned with that of the status holder.
- curun1r 10y agoYou said: > Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the things they're good at. I'm arguing that you don't get to define status for yourself, so there are limits to how you can distinguish yourself and still claim status. You have to be graded on a recognized dimension of status. That makes it virtually impossible for everyone to be high status. Also, certain dimensions of status are far more universal than others. I don't care how much you can bench press, you're going to be almost universally seen as lower status than a handsome, movie-star actor. Those dimensions of status are so widespread that you really can't define your way past them. And it works in reverse too...certain dimensions are almost universally unrecognized. For example, I can hold my breath for just over 8 minutes. That puts me in elite company and people are almost always impressed by it. A couple of decades ago, going that long without breathing would have met the medical definition of death despite my never having lost consciousness. But I can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how much I'd like it to.
- crdb 10y ago> But I can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how much I'd like it to. You could learn to free dive in a couple of weeks and use your capacity for breath holding to get yourself on most countries' national team (doubt that would cut it for the US team, but you could win some regional meets). Being a national athlete confers decent status, more so if you pick up a medal. From a quick Google for an example, the current NZ and 4th global women's record for women is 7 minutes 45 in static apnea [1], and she easily beat the men's champion, so 8 minutes would presumably be very good. I'm basing the mapping from "apnea capability" to "free diving capability" off what a free diving friend told me. (I don't disagree with the rest of your point.) [1] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11738805 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&obje...
- curun1r 10y agoHeh...freediving is the context in which one learns to hold his breath for that long :) Unfortunately, my static times don't translate as well into dynamic times. I'm basically limited to 2-3 minutes underwater when I'm moving. My PB for depth is around 50m, which is nowhere near elite. I basically came to freediving too late in life to ever be world class in any of the disciplines. The funny thing is that, when it comes to status, what little my freediving training has gained me has come from the associated weight loss.
- tominous 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blaine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Blaine
- wiz21c 10y agoThe argument is weak. Basically : just choose the status you're happy with and you'll be king. Except that you don't choose your status, you earn it. Except that society won't reward your own personal little status. Etc.