7 ms·

Sometimes you see articles like this that insist that you have to play a status game of some kind etc etc. The hacker in me sees that as even more reason to loo

• sacrosancty 5y ago
  Status usually represents having done some social good. The more good you do, the higher your status. If you look at it as a measure of how much good a person has done, then it might not seem so contemptable. Who did more good for more people - a hermit or Bill Gates?
  • lordnacho 5y ago
    His kids will have higher status than most people, what did they do?
    • FredPret 5y ago
      They inherited the DNA of a guy who did lots of good, thus leading our lizard brains to suppose that they, too, have potential
  • joshuacc 5y ago
    Many cultures and religions would say that the hermit did, or at least might have. :)
  • pdonis 5y ago
    > Status usually represents having done some social good. For whatever value of "good" applies in that particular social network, yes. But that value of "good" might not be anything we would call "good" in ordinary language. For example, Bill Gates does have high status, but he has it because he is rich, not because of the particular things he did that made him rich. Those things happened to be reasonably beneficial (how much so depends on your opinion of Windows and Microsoft, and opinions on that can...vary), but many other rich people got that way by doing things that were not. Yet they still get status according to their wealth.
    • hallway_monitor 5y ago
      I think maybe GP was talking about what Bill Gates chose to do with his money and influence once he had them. In terms of the number of lives saved and improved, Bill Gates has had more impact than most of us could ever hope to.
      • pdonis 5y ago
        > In terms of the number of lives saved and improved But Bill Gates did that after he already had status. He didn't gain status by doing that.
        • rootusrootus 5y ago
          Arguably he did gain status. He did just what the writer of the article suggested. Instead of putting all of his effort into 'richest person in the world' status, he picked another thing to be high status in. Seems to have worked. He's not the richest guy in the world any more (admittedly he ain't far off, either), but he's arguably worth more respect than Bezos or Musk. Unless you're against microchips in vaccines, of course.
          • bigiain 5y ago
            There’s no doubt Mackenzie Scott has gained a huge amount of status through how she’s dealt with acquiring enormous wealth. For me at least, she has way more respect than Gates Bezos and Musk combined…
  • lambdasquirrel 5y ago
    For sure. But have you worked at any non-profits? Most of the folks I know who do have a hard time, to put it mildly. I've done my share of social-good tech companies, as well as engineer's dream-job stuff. After reflecting on this article, I realized that: 1. I finally enjoy my tech job after I stopped chasing the status game in tech. 2. I finally enjoy my hobbies after I stopped chasing the status game in those hobbies too! I wish things were different on the social-good front. I just try to do good whenever I can in the regular day-to-day world, plus some donations here and there.
    • sacrosancty 5y ago
      Probably most of the social good you do is the paid work for your tech job. Unless you work at some social-harm-causing company. Giving to charity is nothing compared to giving up most of your life's limited capacity to do high-value productive work. It's easy to forget that work is mostly really really good for the people you're doing the work for or their customers or someone down the chain who's ultimately paying you.
  • solarmist 5y ago
    No way. Status is a proxy for access to resources. It has NOTHING to do with doing good by it’s nature. The doing good thing is a VERY recent phenomenon (like within living memory).
• YawningAngel 5y ago
  It seems strange to me to use a Nobel prize-winning physicist as an example of someone who didn't play status games
  • planetsprite 5y ago
    Feynman's secret is that he was a legitimate super-genius with the charisma of a normal guy who happened to luck into all his achievements. In reality it couldn't be farther from the truth, but there's nothing more appealing to an average person than an exceptional person who gives the impression that being like him is achievable.
    • watwut 5y ago
      Feynman was not really framing himself as normal guy who happened to luck into achievements. Nor came accriss as one. His writings are very carefully written and makes you know and feel he is awesome. The way he describes his own dialogs with others also let's everyone know he is super smart and awesome.
  • codeyperson 5y ago
    Feynman’s thoughts on the Nobel prize: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrdJXRe5KE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrdJXRe5KE But I’m sure he secretly enjoyed the praise somewhat.
  • NewEntryHN 5y ago
    He played the science game and was so good at he obtained a Nobel Prize.
• Invictus0 5y ago
  > rainbow hats with propellers Would you call such a thing a status symbol? Something glorified in certain circles and disregarded in others? The author clearly explained that removing yourself from status games just ends up putting you in a different status game (his metalhead days). The reality is that you have many statuses irrespective of whether you want it or not merely as a function of being in a group. I suppose by not being in any groups you would accrue status among people that value that too.
• wowokay 5y ago
  I agree. I can understand that the article is focused on pointing out that everyone seems status in some way or another, but I think it is fair to say that somethings shouldn’t really be considered status. Working for money, fame, influence. Those are pursuits some people have no interest in, I don’t think it’s fair to say someone who cares about their family, or hanging out with friends view those activities with the same lust people chasing money, power, etc, do. Maybe there is more to be said about how individuals view their “status” pursuits then labeling everyone as animals pursuing status.
• kansface 5y ago
  Somewhat ironically, refusing to acknowledge or honor conventional status games is itself a status increasing play among hackers, which invalidates the spirit of the advice if not the advice itself! This is also probably terrible advice for a different milieu.
  • tomgp 5y ago
    yeah, you assert your status by being able to ignore cultural/office norms.
    • Daishiman 5y ago
      That generally will make you look like an asshole and can be a substantial career stopper.
  • Daishiman 5y ago
    As you get older, you find that the active refusal of status games as a countercultural ploy just gets tired and makes you seen a someone hard to deal with. Learn to dress well and talk well to play the game, then be able to revert to your own self with no shame.
• adewinter 5y ago
  "status games" might be in the same class of things as "don't think about x". Even by not playing... You're just playing on a different level (lower or higher).
• makeitdouble 5y ago
  IMO the point of the article is you're playing a status game either way. > the highest paid and smartest among us wear rainbow hats with propellers. It works because they enjoy status from performance and accomplishments. Also suiting up often becomes a negative sign in our circles, and getting away with rough presentation can be a sign of status.
• AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Don't take life so seriously and goof around a little more. Thats how you turn up interesting ideas anyway, not by playing status games. Reading your comment, it sounds like you've got a decent amount of social status without needing to explicitly pursue it. While that's great for you, don't forget that for others, increased status can mean: - No longer being treated like shit by people who get away with it - A social circle that doesn't constantly try to take advantage of you - Security in your job, as well as greater opportunities for promotion - Positive attention from the opposite sex - Peer acceptance for your children
  • sombremesa 5y ago
    This is a very interesting comment. At first I found myself in strong agreement with GP (believing people chasing status are probably misguided), but after reading your comment I realized that it might have to do with my current status (independently wealthy in a first world country). In places like China or India, there is indeed a very big difference in QoL between those who have status and/or social power and those who do not. That being said, it might be better to change your environment (and the people who you surround yourself with), because that will change your status as TFA outlines — without you having to go out of your way to change who you are and what you do. Easier said than done when this involves changing countries, but it's a long-term strat.
    • AussieWog93 5y ago
      >Easier said than done when this involves changing countries, but it's a long-term strat. Independent of changing countries, this can be hard to do. Changing peer groups means being accepted by the new group you want to join. For example (within a first-world country), a lower middle-class person looking to join an upper middle-class group will find that they have the wrong taste in clothes, food, books and films, live in the wrong postcode and most likely not have the economic means to "keep up with the Joneses" the way upper middle-class people do. God knows what someone from, say, the tribal regions of Pakistan would need to do to be accepted as middle-class in a first-world country. It's more than a plane ticket - it's a complete lack of exposure to Western media/culture.
• brandall10 5y ago
  Dressing down and/or breaking social norms is another type of status flex - it's because you're a high paid engineer working at a top tech company that you can more or less do whatever you want in a way a more typical employee couldn't, or couldn't without being taken seriously.
• kyawzazaw 5y ago
  > where the highest paid and smartest among us wear rainbow hats with propellers. Are you sure about this though? It seems like you are referring to a bunch of Software Engineers. That's nowhere near wealthiest.