6 ms·

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 h

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…
    - gumby 5y ago
      He was trying to launder his reputation after all the stuff that came out in the trials, his connections to Epstein (which went back to before E’s first arrest) etc.
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    Whatever positive effect his philantropy has, it has to be offset by the damage he's done to the world, by slowing down progress (famous asshole predatory behaviour of MS of the nineties) in order to make his money in the first place. Only then we can try to assess if Bill Gates' overall impact on the world was actually positive.
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      Just noting that apparently you're assuming that another company, who had been there instead of MS, would have acted in better ways Looking at Apple, Oracle, Google etc -- how likely does that seem
- csee 5y ago
  Mafia bosses have high status in their orbit, so yes.
- abhaynayar 5y ago
  > how much so depends on your opinion of Windows It depends on the version of Windows as well.
- darkerside 5y ago
  People make money by providing value to other people. The people who provide the most perceived value have the most money. It is a signifier of status whether you like it or not. Most people who make money are providing a service to many people, or to someone else with a lot of money (who therefore provided value previously). Care to provide a counterexample?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Bain Capitol is a classic example. They bought companies, sold off their assets, wrote themselves huge bonuses, bankrupted the companies, and wrote them off as losses to avoid paying taxes on any of the above. They made their money by destroying value, not providing any. And then there's multigenerational wealth. Rich brats don't provide intrinsic value, but they're born rich. They don't get that way by providing value. Their ancestors may have stolen their wealth, so they didn't get there by providing value either.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      I remember the hysteria about vulture capitalism. Even vultures play a valuable role in their ecosystem. Companies don't sell themselves to a private equity shop because they are thriving and healthy. If they were more valuable in parts than their sum, it says something about the company. Can't say much about the hypothetical wealth stealing since it's completely hypothetical.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        "It says something about the company" might be a moral salve in your eyes, but you have not established that they provide value to anybody but themselves. Specifically: how does pilfering pension funds, and then declaring bankruptcy provide "value" in any meaningful sense? It provides greater wealth to the already filthy-rich and destroys the considerable investment that life-long workers have earned, sending those who would be retiring comfortably into poverty -- which then taxes the public support systems. A huge negative for hundreds or thousands of people, for what? A marginal increase in wealth for the already wealthy. Where's the value?
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).

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…
  - gumby 5y ago
    He was trying to launder his reputation after all the stuff that came out in the trials, his connections to Epstein (which went back to before E’s first arrest) etc.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  Whatever positive effect his philantropy has, it has to be offset by the damage he's done to the world, by slowing down progress (famous asshole predatory behaviour of MS of the nineties) in order to make his money in the first place. Only then we can try to assess if Bill Gates' overall impact on the world was actually positive.
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    Just noting that apparently you're assuming that another company, who had been there instead of MS, would have acted in better ways Looking at Apple, Oracle, Google etc -- how likely does that seem
csee 5y ago
Mafia bosses have high status in their orbit, so yes.
abhaynayar 5y ago
> how much so depends on your opinion of Windows It depends on the version of Windows as well.
darkerside 5y ago
People make money by providing value to other people. The people who provide the most perceived value have the most money. It is a signifier of status whether you like it or not. Most people who make money are providing a service to many people, or to someone else with a lot of money (who therefore provided value previously). Care to provide a counterexample?
- klyrs 5y ago
  Bain Capitol is a classic example. They bought companies, sold off their assets, wrote themselves huge bonuses, bankrupted the companies, and wrote them off as losses to avoid paying taxes on any of the above. They made their money by destroying value, not providing any. And then there's multigenerational wealth. Rich brats don't provide intrinsic value, but they're born rich. They don't get that way by providing value. Their ancestors may have stolen their wealth, so they didn't get there by providing value either.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    I remember the hysteria about vulture capitalism. Even vultures play a valuable role in their ecosystem. Companies don't sell themselves to a private equity shop because they are thriving and healthy. If they were more valuable in parts than their sum, it says something about the company. Can't say much about the hypothetical wealth stealing since it's completely hypothetical.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      "It says something about the company" might be a moral salve in your eyes, but you have not established that they provide value to anybody but themselves. Specifically: how does pilfering pension funds, and then declaring bankruptcy provide "value" in any meaningful sense? It provides greater wealth to the already filthy-rich and destroys the considerable investment that life-long workers have earned, sending those who would be retiring comfortably into poverty -- which then taxes the public support systems. A huge negative for hundreds or thousands of people, for what? A marginal increase in wealth for the already wealthy. Where's the value?

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).