19 ms·

Thank goodness for status ambiguity. It's possible to be rich, yet a terrific bore; a talented golfer who is a mean drunk; a world class programmer who can't w

by zxcmx 7y ago

Thank goodness for status ambiguity. It's possible to be rich, yet a terrific bore; a talented golfer who is a mean drunk; a world class programmer who can't weld for beans; or a respected judge who nonetheless commits a faux pas at a society event. We can all be switching statuses all the time and (to an extent) we get to choose which ones, if any, matter to us. I think this makes life immensely more rich and tolerable than the self promoters of this world would have us believe.

stared 7y ago
It is closely related to the "scalar fallacy" (see http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar-fallacy.html; http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar... the quotation from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525): > The scalar fallacy is the false but pervasive assumption that real-world things (hotels, sandwiches, people, mutual funds, chemo drugs, whatever) have some single-dimension ordering of "goodness". > When you project a multi-dimensional space down to one dimension, you are involving a lot of context and preferences in the act of projecting.
- dmos62 7y ago
  Single dimension fallacy might be a good alternative name. I'd add that often things don't have a single ordering of goodness at all. Like a tomato sauce: some people like it thick, others watery, others chunky; so it actually has at least 3 orderings.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    A scalar is a single dimension
    - andrewprock 7y ago
      I love that this is both technically correct, and at the same time is a "move" in the "status game".
      - CuriouslyC 7y ago
        Everything is a move in the status game, including your comment and this one.
  - jonathanstrange 7y ago
    Well, the general solution of economists is to assume that every person has their own ordering. This doesn't work for Spectrum Arguments by Larry Temkin, though. A typical argument goes like this: Suppose alternative A gives you an extremely high level of well-being for a month. B brings a little bit less well-being than A for two months. C a little bit less well-being for four months, and so forth. In pairwise comparisons you judge that B is better than A, C is better than B, and so on. Yet at some point, say, Z you will consider A better than Z if you compare A to Z, but you will continue to consider Z better than Y. Therefore, "better than" is not transitive. People have written a lot of articles on how to solve these types of puzzles, which can be formulated many different evaluative domains. They always involve two or more criteria.
    - stared 7y ago
      Once you go to multidimensional vector spaces, you don't need order. For example, the classic rock-paper-scissors can be modeled with 3 points in 2d. This has fundamental implications, as many activities do have this cyclical parts (see also such decomposition for vector fields, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition). Vide Reinforcement Learning for StarCraft 2: https://deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaStar-Grandmaster-level-in-StarCraft-II-using-multi-agent-reinforcement-learning https://deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaStar-Grandmaster-leve...
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Unfortunately time is one-dimensional, which creates a demand for ordering (I wouldn't be surprised if all demand for order actually came from that fact). I may not need ordering in 3D space, up until the moment I need to grab a few things - then I have to decide on an order, because grabbing is sequential.
    - yboris 7y ago
      I've heard Temkin give talks attacking transitivity and I never buy it. Most of his examples involve infinity which is problematic. In the example you share, I think all it points out is that our ability to compare things (psychologically) is broken: we may think A < B < C < ... X < Z in pairwise comparisons, but something goes silly when we compare A and Z and think A > Z. I strongly think this is a bias akin to scope insensitivity. By the time we get to Z we're likely talking about HUNDREDS OF YEARS of experience, and we just are not psychologically fit to make such a comparison. So I don't think Temkin is right. PS - Derek Parfit and the "repugnant conclusion" ... not so repugnant if you think about it right ;)
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    If I don't care, it doesn't exist? And in all 3 cases you have putrid to fresh to masterfully made in terms of composition, quality of ingredients, age, etc...valuation can't be the composite of 'goodness', or we'd all become utility monsters chasing bitcoin.
- bernawil 7y ago
  I don't get it. Is it related to rankings, star systems, etc? > pervasive assumption I think whenever "rating" anything people are aware that it's a subjective and probably useless number meant for convenience than accuracy.
  - bob33212 7y ago
    A 3d vector of 2m by 8m by .1m can be projected on to a plane in a wide range of scalars. When someone says that someone else is smart because they got a 100 on a test they are taking a multidimensional attribute and projecting it onto a single dimension.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      I still think people understand that intelligence is multifaceted. Nobody past 3rd grade thinks that intelligence is entirely and directly measured by an exam. However, acing a tough exam does show that you have high ability in some skills which can be included in "intelligence". It is perfectly reasonable to say someone is smart after they do something to prove their cognitive ability, even if they haven't proven every single possible kind of cognitive ability. I think the miscommunication here is what people mean when they say "he is smart" or "this hotel is better than that one". I don't think people are commiting a scalar fallacy when they say these things. People are making judgements based on the many different aspects of a thing, and then using simplified speech to express their opinion. If you are booking a vacation, you have to choose a hotel. When comparing hotels you look at all the different aspects (the bed, room size, the restaurant/bar, etc). You have to weigh all these options and then pick which hotel you would prefer to stay at. So when you make a choice and say 'hotel A is better than hotel B', you are not asserting that hotel goodness is measured in one dimension and that hotel A is objectively better. It's rather a benign statement that you would prefer to stay at hotel A. It's not a fallacious reduction to a scalar quantity, but at some point you do have to make choices and weigh preferences.
      - bob33212 7y ago
        It is far easier to understand the dimensions of hotel measurements than the dimensions of human intelligence.
CalRobert 7y ago
"we get to choose which ones, if any, matter to us." Definitely! It can be amusing (and awkward) when the game is played by people who have wildly different things they value. Someone (politely, of course) reveals they're a wealthy executive and you react by looking on them with pity because they have to sell their time to others to work on dumb things that don't matter while you get to be footloose and backpack around Europe. Or you dress well and have the right accent so everyone assumes you're powerful when you're not (when I first moved to Ireland I was startled how many people assumed I was the boss and just visiting for a few days because I had an American accent). Or maybe you farm - and people look down on you - but wait! You quit the rat race to start an organic farm selling high end niche-goods to upscale restaurants - and suddenly you're the shrewd individual who made the right decisions in life to be able to do that. It can be useful to remember that everyone wakes up and goes to the toilet in the morning, no matter their status. Years ago I read a quote from someone who liked naturism (nudity) because it stripped away most of the immediate signifiers of class from people.
- RookyNumbas 7y ago
  Right. There isn't one game, there are infinitely many, and different people will have success at different games. But there is also the meta-game: The game of being able to win the highest variety and largest amount of different games. I think this meta-game is closest to what we think of as status.
  - abnry 7y ago
    It's kinda funny how we selectively care. Usually we only care about the things we feel we could be good at. Someone like Lebron James has a lot more status than I ever will. But I just don't care because I have never been good at basketball (or sports) and I don't really care about the skill. But someone who is a 10x programmer or has published a lot of great results in mathematics? That pit of envy in my stomach will appear. It gets worse when you compare yourself to someone who is better in both the things you care about AND the things you don't care about. This is because we placate ourselves with the fact that others are better at what we care about by saying, "at least I am better at them in this area, even if I don't care about it too much." The way Christianity deals with this problem is one of the most appealing things about it for me. "From dust you came to dust you will return." Instead of focusing on your selfish ambition and self-glory, focus on the beauty of what is at play, ultimately seeing it as rays of light coming from God's glory.

by zxcmx 7y ago

stared 7y ago

It is closely related to the "scalar fallacy" (see http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar-fallacy.html; http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar... the quotation from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525): > The scalar fallacy is the false but pervasive assumption that real-world things (hotels, sandwiches, people, mutual funds, chemo drugs, whatever) have some single-dimension ordering of "goodness". > When you project a multi-dimensional space down to one dimension, you are involving a lot of context and preferences in the act of projecting.

dmos62 7y ago
Single dimension fallacy might be a good alternative name. I'd add that often things don't have a single ordering of goodness at all. Like a tomato sauce: some people like it thick, others watery, others chunky; so it actually has at least 3 orderings.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  A scalar is a single dimension
  - andrewprock 7y ago
    I love that this is both technically correct, and at the same time is a "move" in the "status game".
    - CuriouslyC 7y ago
      Everything is a move in the status game, including your comment and this one.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago
  Well, the general solution of economists is to assume that every person has their own ordering. This doesn't work for Spectrum Arguments by Larry Temkin, though. A typical argument goes like this: Suppose alternative A gives you an extremely high level of well-being for a month. B brings a little bit less well-being than A for two months. C a little bit less well-being for four months, and so forth. In pairwise comparisons you judge that B is better than A, C is better than B, and so on. Yet at some point, say, Z you will consider A better than Z if you compare A to Z, but you will continue to consider Z better than Y. Therefore, "better than" is not transitive. People have written a lot of articles on how to solve these types of puzzles, which can be formulated many different evaluative domains. They always involve two or more criteria.
  - stared 7y ago
    Once you go to multidimensional vector spaces, you don't need order. For example, the classic rock-paper-scissors can be modeled with 3 points in 2d. This has fundamental implications, as many activities do have this cyclical parts (see also such decomposition for vector fields, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition). Vide Reinforcement Learning for StarCraft 2: https://deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaStar-Grandmaster-level-in-StarCraft-II-using-multi-agent-reinforcement-learning https://deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaStar-Grandmaster-leve...
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Unfortunately time is one-dimensional, which creates a demand for ordering (I wouldn't be surprised if all demand for order actually came from that fact). I may not need ordering in 3D space, up until the moment I need to grab a few things - then I have to decide on an order, because grabbing is sequential.
  - yboris 7y ago
    I've heard Temkin give talks attacking transitivity and I never buy it. Most of his examples involve infinity which is problematic. In the example you share, I think all it points out is that our ability to compare things (psychologically) is broken: we may think A < B < C < ... X < Z in pairwise comparisons, but something goes silly when we compare A and Z and think A > Z. I strongly think this is a bias akin to scope insensitivity. By the time we get to Z we're likely talking about HUNDREDS OF YEARS of experience, and we just are not psychologically fit to make such a comparison. So I don't think Temkin is right. PS - Derek Parfit and the "repugnant conclusion" ... not so repugnant if you think about it right ;)
- Psyladine 7y ago
  If I don't care, it doesn't exist? And in all 3 cases you have putrid to fresh to masterfully made in terms of composition, quality of ingredients, age, etc...valuation can't be the composite of 'goodness', or we'd all become utility monsters chasing bitcoin.
bernawil 7y ago
I don't get it. Is it related to rankings, star systems, etc? > pervasive assumption I think whenever "rating" anything people are aware that it's a subjective and probably useless number meant for convenience than accuracy.
- bob33212 7y ago
  A 3d vector of 2m by 8m by .1m can be projected on to a plane in a wide range of scalars. When someone says that someone else is smart because they got a 100 on a test they are taking a multidimensional attribute and projecting it onto a single dimension.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    I still think people understand that intelligence is multifaceted. Nobody past 3rd grade thinks that intelligence is entirely and directly measured by an exam. However, acing a tough exam does show that you have high ability in some skills which can be included in "intelligence". It is perfectly reasonable to say someone is smart after they do something to prove their cognitive ability, even if they haven't proven every single possible kind of cognitive ability. I think the miscommunication here is what people mean when they say "he is smart" or "this hotel is better than that one". I don't think people are commiting a scalar fallacy when they say these things. People are making judgements based on the many different aspects of a thing, and then using simplified speech to express their opinion. If you are booking a vacation, you have to choose a hotel. When comparing hotels you look at all the different aspects (the bed, room size, the restaurant/bar, etc). You have to weigh all these options and then pick which hotel you would prefer to stay at. So when you make a choice and say 'hotel A is better than hotel B', you are not asserting that hotel goodness is measured in one dimension and that hotel A is objectively better. It's rather a benign statement that you would prefer to stay at hotel A. It's not a fallacious reduction to a scalar quantity, but at some point you do have to make choices and weigh preferences.
    - bob33212 7y ago
      It is far easier to understand the dimensions of hotel measurements than the dimensions of human intelligence.

CalRobert 7y ago

"we get to choose which ones, if any, matter to us." Definitely! It can be amusing (and awkward) when the game is played by people who have wildly different things they value. Someone (politely, of course) reveals they're a wealthy executive and you react by looking on them with pity because they have to sell their time to others to work on dumb things that don't matter while you get to be footloose and backpack around Europe. Or you dress well and have the right accent so everyone assumes you're powerful when you're not (when I first moved to Ireland I was startled how many people assumed I was the boss and just visiting for a few days because I had an American accent). Or maybe you farm - and people look down on you - but wait! You quit the rat race to start an organic farm selling high end niche-goods to upscale restaurants - and suddenly you're the shrewd individual who made the right decisions in life to be able to do that. It can be useful to remember that everyone wakes up and goes to the toilet in the morning, no matter their status. Years ago I read a quote from someone who liked naturism (nudity) because it stripped away most of the immediate signifiers of class from people.

RookyNumbas 7y ago
Right. There isn't one game, there are infinitely many, and different people will have success at different games. But there is also the meta-game: The game of being able to win the highest variety and largest amount of different games. I think this meta-game is closest to what we think of as status.
- abnry 7y ago
  It's kinda funny how we selectively care. Usually we only care about the things we feel we could be good at. Someone like Lebron James has a lot more status than I ever will. But I just don't care because I have never been good at basketball (or sports) and I don't really care about the skill. But someone who is a 10x programmer or has published a lot of great results in mathematics? That pit of envy in my stomach will appear. It gets worse when you compare yourself to someone who is better in both the things you care about AND the things you don't care about. This is because we placate ourselves with the fact that others are better at what we care about by saying, "at least I am better at them in this area, even if I don't care about it too much." The way Christianity deals with this problem is one of the most appealing things about it for me. "From dust you came to dust you will return." Instead of focusing on your selfish ambition and self-glory, focus on the beauty of what is at play, ultimately seeing it as rays of light coming from God's glory.