6 ms·

There is a contradiction, because the argument in the article assumes the signalling of social standing is THE reason for the behavior. Opinions like A pers

There is a contradiction, because the argument in the article assumes the signalling of social standing is THE reason for the behavior. Opinions like A person who is somewhat intelligent will conspicuously signal eir intelligence by holding difficult-to-understand opinions. A person who is very intelligent will conspicuously signal that ey feels no need to conspicuously signal eir intelligence, by deliberately not holding difficult-to-understand opinions. are incredibly annoying. It's one of those opinions that are almost impossible to defend against or disprove, because of the vague nature of 'conspicuously' and 'difficult-to-understand'. Actually, I think you can attack it as form a meta-contrarianism itself: anti-intellectuals will hold the above opinion, intellectuals will denounce that opinion and meta-contrarians will claim that 'people cannot help but be influenced by concern for their social standing, so there is some truth in the assertions of anti-intellectuals that intellectuals show behavior which seems to be intended solely to make it harder for non-intellectuals to enter their field', which polarizes into the quoted opinion.

ckuehne 16y ago
"There is a contradiction, because the argument in the article assumes the signalling of social standing is THE reason for the behavior." Yes, of course it is the (proximate) reason. That is the whole point of the article. It does not argue however, that it happens consciously: "What is interesting about these triads is not that people hold the positions [..] but that people get deep personal satisfaction from arguing the positions [..]" People gain satisfaction from arguing. They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be doing it to signal social standing but that is the end result of their actions on average. People usually go for status but like to convince themselves (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  >People usually go for status but like to believe (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course. This was never a discussion about people and their actions in general, but a stratified examination of the differences in thought patterns between 3 groups: those of average intelligence, those of moderate intelligence, and those of high intelligence. You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. edit: If you're not talking specifically about the "most intelligent" subset it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
  - ckuehne 16y ago
    >You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. I am neither ignoring the context of the article nor am I making "sweeping generalizations" or "projections". And I would prefer if you don't make these assumptions about me. All I am saying is that signaling does not have to be conscious or self-aware in the sense of "Oh, I have to say this and that to rise to the top of the hipster hierarchy". It might just be the hipster enjoys dressing contrary to the mainstream just as the contrarian enjoys arguing contrary to the mainstream opinion. Hence my analogy: I enjoy sex. It's a heuristic shaped by my genes that would usually serve the purpose of reproduction. People enjoy signaling in the form of buying nice cars of putting on make-up: it's heuristic shaped by our genes that on average (not every signal leads to a better outcome) increases the chance of reproduction. It is not the you actively think "Okay: if I buy a car it might increase my social standing and ultimately increase the chance of girls liking me more.". You just enjoy the stuff. Just as you "just enjoy sex" or the bower bird has an innate desire to build colorful homes. EDIT for clarity.
    - metamemetics 16y ago
      I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing this strawman and broadening the debate to new, unrelated philosophical heights, so be it. I will say now that it is childish argument. You give no explanation for why a "gene" should be considered the base unit of evolution rather than an "idea". Especially when natural selection stopped applying to suburban humans with access to healthcare a long time ago. By all indicators, human evolution is now occurring through technology, not genes. Technology and debate over how to use it is the most likely cause of humans diverging into multiple species, not genetics. Genetic biological reproduction seems to be your God. It is the planner and predeterminer, and can be said to have causative power over all actions. The gene is arbitrary. The gene is ambiguous. The gene is defined by man. Genes and genetic reproduction is but one method for the continued existence of things through time. Humans have defeated the gene. We don't need to die and reproduce several times to store and communicate survival information to our descendent's. We have invented language and can write it in a book. You are stuck in genetic determinism, denying any idea of free will. Not to say free will is a suitable answer either. Both are a naive treatment of the subject of causality.
- Confusion 16y ago
  They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be doing it to signal social standing Here you say 'might', while it once again becomes 'usually' here: People usually go for status I repeat: I find this last assertion incredibly annoying. I'm a regular guy and I think that I don't argue for status or social standing, but because I'm interested in 'the truth', insofar as that means 'what works best for us', where 'us' includes everyone I care about. I'd like to see someone making a convincing argument to the contrary, that doesn't involve supposed historical and psychological facts about 'human nature' that are, without supporting argument, extended to include individuals like me that that someone are having a discussion with. It's a logical fallacy to make some vague accusations like "you are just arguing this because of concern for your social standing". I will have none of that. I can easily invert the reasoning: if you doubt my motives, then you are the one that seems to be looking for an ad hominem way out of the argument, because you are losing and don't want to lose your standing. This kind of argument leads nowhere.
  - Xurinos 16y ago
    I'm a regular guy and I think that I don't argue for status or social standing, but because I'm interested in 'the truth', insofar as that means 'what works best for us', where 'us' includes everyone I care about. I find it fascinating that as soon as you tried to counter an argument about signaling social standing, you directly signaled social standing. Truly, we do not always know the real motivations behind our own actions and words. You may need to do more introspection. "I'm a regular guy" -- This establishes a social status you want us to see. You are trying to create a peer relationship with other "regular" people, to connect with your audience on a friend/peer/informal level. Then you follow up this statement with an assertion that you wish to speak for others ("I'm interested in 'the truth' ... where 'us' includes everyone I care about"). You have elevated yourself to leader/spokesperson status. You make another social distinction when you say "individuals like me", and here you are trying to tell everyone -- in so many words -- that you are unique and special. Whether you realized you were doing this, you employed arguments from standpoints of status. I cannot find the article, but I read an account from a guy who took a few-month vow of silence for fun to see what it was like. He had a number of interesting mental state changes and experiences, all of which seemed beneficial, but one thing that stuck out in my mind was a little principle of communication that he felt he discovered: Almost all our speech is to express existence, to say, "Hey, look at me! I am here!" In forums where people pass ideas back and forth, it is often, "I exist! I have something to share that you will find useful! You might like me if I share it! Look at me!" And yes, the fact that I am responding is, indeed, to draw attention to myself, to establish myself as something of an authority on this issue, given my limited experiences in this lifetime... is just a pompous way of saying, "I am here". :)
gwern 16y ago
> "Individual organisms are best viewed as adaptation-executers rather than fitness-maximizers." --Cosmides and Tooby; <i>The Adapted Mind</i>
ericb 16y ago
Would someone explain the whole "eir" and "ey" thing to me? Is this an attempt at hipster spelling--demonstrating they are so smart they don't need to conspicuously spell correctly? Did I miss something?
- noahlt 16y ago
  The words are genderless, singular pronouns.
  - ericb 16y ago
    So a commenter can go hipster meta in his or her writing with standard pronouns?
    - nkurz 16y ago
      Yes, although I'd argue that it's not meta-hipster but meta-geek. If you wouldn't use 'grok', you probably wouldn't use 'eir'. In the same vein, putting your punctuation outside your quote can either be a simple mistake or meta-grammarian protest. Even the choice of single versus double quotes is signalling, consciously or not. The problem is not correctness, but whether the signal is properly received by your audience. You chose 'his or her', but was this a conscious choice? And at what level? Was it because you fear being judged poorly for the grammatically correct but non-politically correct 'his'? Because you find 'eir' pretentious? Because you find substituting 'her' to be an affectation? To me, 'His or her' is a signals that you are aware that language can be sexist, and want to show that you are not. I think it correlates with college-educated American liberal born after 1960, or one who has learned his English from such. I fit these characteristics, but usually consciously choose 'his', hopefully signalling that I detest linguistic contortions for the sake of signalling political correctness, but more likely just being judged an unrepentant sexist. If I don't want to take this risk, I switch to an across-the-board 'her', as I feel this is more effective at actually combatting sexism. Have you read Hofstadter's essay on "Purity in Language"? http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
  - deleted 16y ago
endtime 16y ago
I think you're taking that a little too personally. It's supposed to be a generalization, not a steadfast rule that applies to absolutely everyone. I also don't think falsifiability is really a problem here. I've met people who do this - one person in particular comes to mind, someone who very obviously tries to hold difficult-to-understand opinions in order to signal his intelligence (a philosophy major at a state university, he informed me that I "don't understand philosophy" when I called him out on wordy bullshit). Most cases aren't nearly so obvious, but if you think about it you'll probably realize you know someone who does this as well; perhaps you'll even think of instances when you've done it. Readers of Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, or at least some of them, participate not to feel superior to those who don't read OB or LW but to, well, overcome their own biases and self-improve. Given that you seem to feel attacked by the article, I think you're taking it the wrong way.

ckuehne 16y ago

"There is a contradiction, because the argument in the article assumes the signalling of social standing is THE reason for the behavior." Yes, of course it is the (proximate) reason. That is the whole point of the article. It does not argue however, that it happens consciously: "What is interesting about these triads is not that people hold the positions [..] but that people get deep personal satisfaction from arguing the positions [..]" People gain satisfaction from arguing. They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be doing it to signal social standing but that is the end result of their actions on average. People usually go for status but like to convince themselves (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course.

metamemetics 16y ago
>People usually go for status but like to believe (and most often do so successfully) that they do things for a noble course. This was never a discussion about people and their actions in general, but a stratified examination of the differences in thought patterns between 3 groups: those of average intelligence, those of moderate intelligence, and those of high intelligence. You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. edit: If you're not talking specifically about the "most intelligent" subset it's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
- ckuehne 16y ago
  >You are ignoring the context and framework of the article, and making sweeping generalizations where you project your experiences and manner of thinking to not just those similar to you, but to "people" in general. I am neither ignoring the context of the article nor am I making "sweeping generalizations" or "projections". And I would prefer if you don't make these assumptions about me. All I am saying is that signaling does not have to be conscious or self-aware in the sense of "Oh, I have to say this and that to rise to the top of the hipster hierarchy". It might just be the hipster enjoys dressing contrary to the mainstream just as the contrarian enjoys arguing contrary to the mainstream opinion. Hence my analogy: I enjoy sex. It's a heuristic shaped by my genes that would usually serve the purpose of reproduction. People enjoy signaling in the form of buying nice cars of putting on make-up: it's heuristic shaped by our genes that on average (not every signal leads to a better outcome) increases the chance of reproduction. It is not the you actively think "Okay: if I buy a car it might increase my social standing and ultimately increase the chance of girls liking me more.". You just enjoy the stuff. Just as you "just enjoy sex" or the bower bird has an innate desire to build colorful homes. EDIT for clarity.
  - metamemetics 16y ago
    I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing this strawman and broadening the debate to new, unrelated philosophical heights, so be it. I will say now that it is childish argument. You give no explanation for why a "gene" should be considered the base unit of evolution rather than an "idea". Especially when natural selection stopped applying to suburban humans with access to healthcare a long time ago. By all indicators, human evolution is now occurring through technology, not genes. Technology and debate over how to use it is the most likely cause of humans diverging into multiple species, not genetics. Genetic biological reproduction seems to be your God. It is the planner and predeterminer, and can be said to have causative power over all actions. The gene is arbitrary. The gene is ambiguous. The gene is defined by man. Genes and genetic reproduction is but one method for the continued existence of things through time. Humans have defeated the gene. We don't need to die and reproduce several times to store and communicate survival information to our descendent's. We have invented language and can write it in a book. You are stuck in genetic determinism, denying any idea of free will. Not to say free will is a suitable answer either. Both are a naive treatment of the subject of causality.
Confusion 16y ago
They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be doing it to signal social standing Here you say 'might', while it once again becomes 'usually' here: People usually go for status I repeat: I find this last assertion incredibly annoying. I'm a regular guy and I think that I don't argue for status or social standing, but because I'm interested in 'the truth', insofar as that means 'what works best for us', where 'us' includes everyone I care about. I'd like to see someone making a convincing argument to the contrary, that doesn't involve supposed historical and psychological facts about 'human nature' that are, without supporting argument, extended to include individuals like me that that someone are having a discussion with. It's a logical fallacy to make some vague accusations like "you are just arguing this because of concern for your social standing". I will have none of that. I can easily invert the reasoning: if you doubt my motives, then you are the one that seems to be looking for an ad hominem way out of the argument, because you are losing and don't want to lose your standing. This kind of argument leads nowhere.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  I'm a regular guy and I think that I don't argue for status or social standing, but because I'm interested in 'the truth', insofar as that means 'what works best for us', where 'us' includes everyone I care about. I find it fascinating that as soon as you tried to counter an argument about signaling social standing, you directly signaled social standing. Truly, we do not always know the real motivations behind our own actions and words. You may need to do more introspection. "I'm a regular guy" -- This establishes a social status you want us to see. You are trying to create a peer relationship with other "regular" people, to connect with your audience on a friend/peer/informal level. Then you follow up this statement with an assertion that you wish to speak for others ("I'm interested in 'the truth' ... where 'us' includes everyone I care about"). You have elevated yourself to leader/spokesperson status. You make another social distinction when you say "individuals like me", and here you are trying to tell everyone -- in so many words -- that you are unique and special. Whether you realized you were doing this, you employed arguments from standpoints of status. I cannot find the article, but I read an account from a guy who took a few-month vow of silence for fun to see what it was like. He had a number of interesting mental state changes and experiences, all of which seemed beneficial, but one thing that stuck out in my mind was a little principle of communication that he felt he discovered: Almost all our speech is to express existence, to say, "Hey, look at me! I am here!" In forums where people pass ideas back and forth, it is often, "I exist! I have something to share that you will find useful! You might like me if I share it! Look at me!" And yes, the fact that I am responding is, indeed, to draw attention to myself, to establish myself as something of an authority on this issue, given my limited experiences in this lifetime... is just a pompous way of saying, "I am here". :)

gwern 16y ago

> "Individual organisms are best viewed as adaptation-executers rather than fitness-maximizers." --Cosmides and Tooby; <i>The Adapted Mind</i>

ericb 16y ago

Would someone explain the whole "eir" and "ey" thing to me? Is this an attempt at hipster spelling--demonstrating they are so smart they don't need to conspicuously spell correctly? Did I miss something?

noahlt 16y ago
The words are genderless, singular pronouns.
- ericb 16y ago
  So a commenter can go hipster meta in his or her writing with standard pronouns?
  - nkurz 16y ago
    Yes, although I'd argue that it's not meta-hipster but meta-geek. If you wouldn't use 'grok', you probably wouldn't use 'eir'. In the same vein, putting your punctuation outside your quote can either be a simple mistake or meta-grammarian protest. Even the choice of single versus double quotes is signalling, consciously or not. The problem is not correctness, but whether the signal is properly received by your audience. You chose 'his or her', but was this a conscious choice? And at what level? Was it because you fear being judged poorly for the grammatically correct but non-politically correct 'his'? Because you find 'eir' pretentious? Because you find substituting 'her' to be an affectation? To me, 'His or her' is a signals that you are aware that language can be sexist, and want to show that you are not. I think it correlates with college-educated American liberal born after 1960, or one who has learned his English from such. I fit these characteristics, but usually consciously choose 'his', hopefully signalling that I detest linguistic contortions for the sake of signalling political correctness, but more likely just being judged an unrepentant sexist. If I don't want to take this risk, I switch to an across-the-board 'her', as I feel this is more effective at actually combatting sexism. Have you read Hofstadter's essay on "Purity in Language"? http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
- deleted 16y ago

endtime 16y ago

I think you're taking that a little too personally. It's supposed to be a generalization, not a steadfast rule that applies to absolutely everyone. I also don't think falsifiability is really a problem here. I've met people who do this - one person in particular comes to mind, someone who very obviously tries to hold difficult-to-understand opinions in order to signal his intelligence (a philosophy major at a state university, he informed me that I "don't understand philosophy" when I called him out on wordy bullshit). Most cases aren't nearly so obvious, but if you think about it you'll probably realize you know someone who does this as well; perhaps you'll even think of instances when you've done it. Readers of Overcoming Bias and Less Wrong, or at least some of them, participate not to feel superior to those who don't read OB or LW but to, well, overcome their own biases and self-improve. Given that you seem to feel attacked by the article, I think you're taking it the wrong way.