3 ms·

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 w

by 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". :)

Confusion 16y ago
"I'm a regular guy" -- This establishes a social status you want us to see. I said "I'm a regular guy" to prevent the counter-argument "Yeah, but you're special (as a HN reader, physicist, ... whatever) and do not represent the majority of te population we are talking about". Because all of us here aren't special: there are at least many thousands of people in the world like any one of us. You are now interpreting my words based on what you expected to see, as you were primed to do by unconsciously having already accepted the premise in the article and not considering alternative interpretations. You work in a non-profit? That's because you wish to signal social standing. You work at a hedge-fund and make lots of money? That's because you want to signal social standing. You work at a startup? That's because you want to signal social standing. You work at a MegaCorp? That's because you want to signal social standing. The analysis is meaningless. It's Freud all over again.
- Xurinos 16y ago
  We are in agreement: you used status in order to counter an argument (claiming to be "I'm a regular guy" in order to avoid the "you're special" argument). "The analysis is meaningless. It's Freud all over again" -- Brushing me off, grouping me, and separating yourself. I see your point about other actions signaling social status. You're right: they do. By the way, I did not read the article before responding to you. I read someone's comment and then yours, and previous experiences were triggered. I responded to you, read the article, and responded to another commenter. I am only talking about words, not really analyzing YOU with the exception of my call for introspection. I am as guilty as anyone of the signaling. I could have not responded because, after all, I do not know you.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    My problem is not so much whether everyone is in fact also signalling status all of the time. That may well be the case, but my point is that that assertion doesn't add anything to an analysis, unless you can convincingly argue it is a decisive factor.

by Xurinos 16y ago

Confusion 16y ago

"I'm a regular guy" -- This establishes a social status you want us to see. I said "I'm a regular guy" to prevent the counter-argument "Yeah, but you're special (as a HN reader, physicist, ... whatever) and do not represent the majority of te population we are talking about". Because all of us here aren't special: there are at least many thousands of people in the world like any one of us. You are now interpreting my words based on what you expected to see, as you were primed to do by unconsciously having already accepted the premise in the article and not considering alternative interpretations. You work in a non-profit? That's because you wish to signal social standing. You work at a hedge-fund and make lots of money? That's because you want to signal social standing. You work at a startup? That's because you want to signal social standing. You work at a MegaCorp? That's because you want to signal social standing. The analysis is meaningless. It's Freud all over again.

Xurinos 16y ago
We are in agreement: you used status in order to counter an argument (claiming to be "I'm a regular guy" in order to avoid the "you're special" argument). "The analysis is meaningless. It's Freud all over again" -- Brushing me off, grouping me, and separating yourself. I see your point about other actions signaling social status. You're right: they do. By the way, I did not read the article before responding to you. I read someone's comment and then yours, and previous experiences were triggered. I responded to you, read the article, and responded to another commenter. I am only talking about words, not really analyzing YOU with the exception of my call for introspection. I am as guilty as anyone of the signaling. I could have not responded because, after all, I do not know you.
- Confusion 16y ago
  My problem is not so much whether everyone is in fact also signalling status all of the time. That may well be the case, but my point is that that assertion doesn't add anything to an analysis, unless you can convincingly argue it is a decisive factor.