3 ms·

I feel like this blog post gets a lot of things wrong, but it doesn't really have a conclusion or coherent argument. So I'll just point out what I feel is wrong

by coryl 15y ago

I feel like this blog post gets a lot of things wrong, but it doesn't really have a conclusion or coherent argument. So I'll just point out what I feel is wrong: • I don't see how social capital or track record is zero sum. When you build something awesome that gives you a reputation, that doesn't take away from other people's achievements. • Techies are low status people except for a few elite (kind of like 99% of regular people as well?). I'm not sure I understand what it means to be low status and its implications on a person. • "Manipulating people is hard". I think you mean "managing people is hard". I understand your bias against non-engineers being responsible for product development, however just because someone isn't a programmer does not make them bourgeois to proletariat. The truth is 100% of people who get paid to work are also told what to work on.

olliesaunders 15y ago
There’s another problem with the managing/manipulating people being hard statement: people vary a lot. Some people don’t need any managing at all; others can’t be trusted at all. By contrast computers are very consistent.
analyst74 15y ago
social status definitely a zero-sum game, you cannot "create" status out of thin air. The highly respected member of society is always a small percentage of the populace.
- danenania 15y ago
  It may be difficult to acquire, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If you gain status by creating a billion dollar company or writing a bestseller, it doesn't take away from anyone else's. That said, who gives a shit? People focused on status tend to be incredibly lame.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    It is pretty close to a zero-sum-game because time is finite and status requires people's time to pay attention. If you gain status by writing a bestseller, some other author is not being talked about now and loses status. Time is a limiter. Who cares? Well, status is a currency in many professions. The most obvious are performers. Status allows options which allows better pay or more personal projects. Status allows a programmer to talk to graphic card companies and have a hope of changing their minds. As much as I wish it were so, pure competence or brilliance doesn't buy that. You have to use the skills to acquire the status. The guy in the back room churning out just as good of code doesn't have the influence (probably some exec does in that case).
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Being high status implies that other people are below you. Otherwise, your status could not be high relative to theirs. It's a relative measure, sure, but being high status implies that there's at least one other person who isn't. That said, I agree with you about focusing on status.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jaredsohn 15y ago
  Being pedantic here, but it is possible to have a society where everyone is a highly respected member (although it would likely have to be smaller for everyone to even have an opinion on everyone else). The set of people who are _most_ highly respected could be a small percent of that population depending on the amount of variance in respect people have of each other.
  - analyst74 15y ago
    I'd love to live in a society where everyone is equals. In fact I think the future of mankind would be best to have all things automated so extremely small communities can survive without much external dependencies.
- chc 15y ago
  If I create a cure for cancer tomorrow, I will suddenly be very prestigious. I cannot imagine whose status it would really degrade. Competing cancer researchers would at worst be in the same position they were in before my achievement, and some would probably be better off if their work contributed to mine. Cancer patients would probably not lose face by being cured. On a basic level, status is just recognition of your deeds. There are very few fields so glutted with great deeds that doing something new will necessarily lead to somebody else's status dropping. Pure socialites are sometimes in such a field. You probably aren't.
- wisty 15y ago
  Why would social status be a zero-sum game? My brain only has room for a few hundred celebrity factoids. Some are good, some are bad. If I see a lot of headlines about Mel Gibson being a nutcase, my opinion of celebrities (and the world in general) tends to be lowered. Social pecking order is zero-sum, but social status isn't. In some places (New York?), everyone has a low opinion of most other people. In other places (Canada? Some parts of California?), people generally treat each other with respect.

by coryl 15y ago

olliesaunders 15y ago

There’s another problem with the managing/manipulating people being hard statement: people vary a lot. Some people don’t need any managing at all; others can’t be trusted at all. By contrast computers are very consistent.

analyst74 15y ago

social status definitely a zero-sum game, you cannot "create" status out of thin air. The highly respected member of society is always a small percentage of the populace.

danenania 15y ago
It may be difficult to acquire, but that doesn't make it zero sum. If you gain status by creating a billion dollar company or writing a bestseller, it doesn't take away from anyone else's. That said, who gives a shit? People focused on status tend to be incredibly lame.
- protomyth 15y ago
  It is pretty close to a zero-sum-game because time is finite and status requires people's time to pay attention. If you gain status by writing a bestseller, some other author is not being talked about now and loses status. Time is a limiter. Who cares? Well, status is a currency in many professions. The most obvious are performers. Status allows options which allows better pay or more personal projects. Status allows a programmer to talk to graphic card companies and have a hope of changing their minds. As much as I wish it were so, pure competence or brilliance doesn't buy that. You have to use the skills to acquire the status. The guy in the back room churning out just as good of code doesn't have the influence (probably some exec does in that case).
- Natsu 15y ago
  Being high status implies that other people are below you. Otherwise, your status could not be high relative to theirs. It's a relative measure, sure, but being high status implies that there's at least one other person who isn't. That said, I agree with you about focusing on status.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jaredsohn 15y ago
Being pedantic here, but it is possible to have a society where everyone is a highly respected member (although it would likely have to be smaller for everyone to even have an opinion on everyone else). The set of people who are _most_ highly respected could be a small percent of that population depending on the amount of variance in respect people have of each other.
- analyst74 15y ago
  I'd love to live in a society where everyone is equals. In fact I think the future of mankind would be best to have all things automated so extremely small communities can survive without much external dependencies.
chc 15y ago
If I create a cure for cancer tomorrow, I will suddenly be very prestigious. I cannot imagine whose status it would really degrade. Competing cancer researchers would at worst be in the same position they were in before my achievement, and some would probably be better off if their work contributed to mine. Cancer patients would probably not lose face by being cured. On a basic level, status is just recognition of your deeds. There are very few fields so glutted with great deeds that doing something new will necessarily lead to somebody else's status dropping. Pure socialites are sometimes in such a field. You probably aren't.
wisty 15y ago
Why would social status be a zero-sum game? My brain only has room for a few hundred celebrity factoids. Some are good, some are bad. If I see a lot of headlines about Mel Gibson being a nutcase, my opinion of celebrities (and the world in general) tends to be lowered. Social pecking order is zero-sum, but social status isn't. In some places (New York?), everyone has a low opinion of most other people. In other places (Canada? Some parts of California?), people generally treat each other with respect.