4 ms·

When you look at individuals who have achieved things you admire, it's so often true that they themselves came from outside the status system that existed at th

When you look at individuals who have achieved things you admire, it's so often true that they themselves came from outside the status system that existed at that time. They now sit within, or atop the current one, but it's often something they themselves have created to a greater or lesser degree. There's a huge lesson there, I think. Being in that position in the current status system is not and never was their goal. It came as a consequence of acheiving real goals, real success. It was a reality they created. If you want to emulate them, you won't do it by 'getting in' to that current system, that's for sure. Instead focus on doing your own thing, and maybe one day finding yourself within or atop a new one.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Please show me a new status system. Not just different people on top of an already existing one. I could see brand new status systems existing for, say, a new video game. Everyone starts out equally as newbies and works their way up. Maybe someone could leverage their position in a current status system (such as wealth or free time) to boost their potential in this new system. Brand new industries could create new status systems, though I don't know how often they really do (for instance, the female programmers of the early computer era tended to bring their lower status into the system, not get status from the new system). I suffer from the problem of not paying attention to status. Which kind of puts me on the outskirts of any status system, or at the very least not able to recognize my status within current systems.
- davnicwil 4y ago
  YC
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    That's a club within the venture capital status system, right?
    - davnicwil 4y ago
      now, yes. Not when it started.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        I don't know about the beginnings of YC.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Which really existed for how long? YC was one of the groups that created that system.
      - gumby 4y ago
        Uhh, 35+ years before YC, which is less than 20 years old. And the VC system arguably evolved from the system that funded whaling voyages, though I really think it dates back to the joint stock limited liability corporation.
- ehnto 4y ago
  Calisthenics was not previously the realm of social status, money or prestige, but there is an industry that "gives" people at the top a place to hold status, both social and financial. I think this happened to a lot of typically very regular low status arenas when the "Influencer" was born, and being good at something non-profitable could now be turned into views, advertising and thus money and fame. Now every grassroots arena can be converted into a vehicle for money and fame, and you have people famous for lots of non-competitive arenas. Like modifying cars, cycling for fun not racing, just generally being fit... there are people famous for making How To Make a Game videos who are considered authorities on the topic, who have never actually made a game.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    These are some very good examples.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  There's status silos everywhere. Chess, sports, games, prisons, inside companies, inside professions, startups, inside academic disciplines. Each of these status silos shares an abstract similarity. They are groups of people battling it out for their peers' recognition and prestige in a zero-sum contest. The criteria by which prestige is bestowed will vary from silo to silo. So it's up to the players of the game to know what the criteria is in their silo of choice, and optimize for it. In a prison, it's violence. In chess, it's competence. In a company, it might be politicking. > I suffer from the problem of not paying attention to status. Are you sure? Maybe you just don't pay attention to conventional status markers. But you are still competing in a status silo (such as a contest here on HN for points?), just an unorthodox one.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > In chess, it's competence. And of course the organizers of chess tournaments also have status. Just as the people who can get things from the outside would have status in a prison. > Are you sure? I mean I'm sure I notice it at times. It is nice when others pay positive attention to what I post. Or in real life when people positively value my contributions. > Maybe you just don't pay attention to conventional status markers. That would be it. I think it's the "status hierarchy" that I don't pay attention to. My interpersonal status seeking and status noticing is not comparative. One person really valuing something from me is as good as 100. I notice when these hierarchies are pointed out, but I don't find value in them when they're pointed out. And credentialism pisses me off.
keiferski 4y ago
Ibn Khaldun's 1377 work Muqaddimah is a very old book that essentially says this. The concept of "ʿasabiyyah" (Arabic: "tribalism, clanism, communitarism", or in a modern context, "group feeling" , "social cohesion", "solidarity" or even "nationalism") is one of the best known aspects of the Muqaddimah. As this ʿasabiyyah declines, another more compelling ʿasabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of ʿasabiyyah as they play out. Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the unity presented by those areas to their advantage in order to bring about a change in leadership. As the new rulers establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax and more concerned with maintaining their lifestyles. Thus, a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah From studying history a bit, I do agree that it's striking how often new powerful civilizations are formed from groups of people that existed on the periphery and had very little institutional power a generation or two beforehand. The Mongols, the Ottomans, and Napoleonic France are just a few examples.
- gumby 4y ago
  > Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. More recently, Hegel made the same point.
  - nvartolomei 4y ago
    I’m curious about a reference for this.
    - keiferski 4y ago
      I am not an expert in Hegel or Ibn Khaldun, but I'm not sure that they're making the same point. I don't think Ibn Khaldun means that this process leads to progress; it's just a description of changes over time. The new civilization isn't necessarily superior or somehow more developed than the previous one. Hegel, on the other hand, is very much wrapped up in the "progress" concept: Hegel’s dialectical method leads to concepts or forms that are increasingly comprehensive and universal. As Hegel puts it, the result of the dialectical process, "is a new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ Here's a (PDF) paper comparing the two thinkers: https://www.ajis.org/index.php/ajiss/article/view/2196 https://www.ajis.org/index.php/ajiss/article/view/2196
ketzo 4y ago
“Things you admire” is an extraordinarily broad category, so yeah, you probably could. But within the world of VC-backed tech companies, I do think “traditional” status markers are still very influential, and that when you dig into the About pages, the majority of founders/investors/current-high-status individuals come from high status backgrounds. A Yale degree is not the end-all be-all, and “Ex-Google” is not a magic key. But I do think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of people in tech (myself included!) benefit from very, very privileged backgrounds.
- apsurd 4y ago
  > I like writing things as if I know what I'm talking about (I don't) lol, made me smile. from your bio. its also important to acknowledge privilege is valuable but not necessary. i know we're saying the same thing but it's important for the people on the other side to see and say it from the other side. yale, xoogler are more bits of information the gatekeepers use. but not having those bits doesn't exclude oneself from the game. it's hard, being on the outside, i just want to make sure to say it. play another game. make another door. people like brand names. i get it it's a thing. it's just not the only thing. we choose to all play the same games using the same signals in the same way. looking backwards for trends forward. only we don't have to. because the future is unknown.
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
Unfortunately, this is rare because status traps blind people to these possibilities. I mean, look at this article’s comments: defense after defense of status as the most important thing. Bluntly: this article isn’t for you if you’re so invested in the idea of status. Given the quasi-finance values that tech represents now, I can’t say I’m super surprised. The author speaks of a life beyond such pursuits.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

Please show me a new status system. Not just different people on top of an already existing one. I could see brand new status systems existing for, say, a new video game. Everyone starts out equally as newbies and works their way up. Maybe someone could leverage their position in a current status system (such as wealth or free time) to boost their potential in this new system. Brand new industries could create new status systems, though I don't know how often they really do (for instance, the female programmers of the early computer era tended to bring their lower status into the system, not get status from the new system). I suffer from the problem of not paying attention to status. Which kind of puts me on the outskirts of any status system, or at the very least not able to recognize my status within current systems.

davnicwil 4y ago
YC
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  That's a club within the venture capital status system, right?
  - davnicwil 4y ago
    now, yes. Not when it started.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      I don't know about the beginnings of YC.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Which really existed for how long? YC was one of the groups that created that system.
    - gumby 4y ago
      Uhh, 35+ years before YC, which is less than 20 years old. And the VC system arguably evolved from the system that funded whaling voyages, though I really think it dates back to the joint stock limited liability corporation.
ehnto 4y ago
Calisthenics was not previously the realm of social status, money or prestige, but there is an industry that "gives" people at the top a place to hold status, both social and financial. I think this happened to a lot of typically very regular low status arenas when the "Influencer" was born, and being good at something non-profitable could now be turned into views, advertising and thus money and fame. Now every grassroots arena can be converted into a vehicle for money and fame, and you have people famous for lots of non-competitive arenas. Like modifying cars, cycling for fun not racing, just generally being fit... there are people famous for making How To Make a Game videos who are considered authorities on the topic, who have never actually made a game.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  These are some very good examples.
hackerlight 4y ago
There's status silos everywhere. Chess, sports, games, prisons, inside companies, inside professions, startups, inside academic disciplines. Each of these status silos shares an abstract similarity. They are groups of people battling it out for their peers' recognition and prestige in a zero-sum contest. The criteria by which prestige is bestowed will vary from silo to silo. So it's up to the players of the game to know what the criteria is in their silo of choice, and optimize for it. In a prison, it's violence. In chess, it's competence. In a company, it might be politicking. > I suffer from the problem of not paying attention to status. Are you sure? Maybe you just don't pay attention to conventional status markers. But you are still competing in a status silo (such as a contest here on HN for points?), just an unorthodox one.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > In chess, it's competence. And of course the organizers of chess tournaments also have status. Just as the people who can get things from the outside would have status in a prison. > Are you sure? I mean I'm sure I notice it at times. It is nice when others pay positive attention to what I post. Or in real life when people positively value my contributions. > Maybe you just don't pay attention to conventional status markers. That would be it. I think it's the "status hierarchy" that I don't pay attention to. My interpersonal status seeking and status noticing is not comparative. One person really valuing something from me is as good as 100. I notice when these hierarchies are pointed out, but I don't find value in them when they're pointed out. And credentialism pisses me off.

keiferski 4y ago

Ibn Khaldun's 1377 work Muqaddimah is a very old book that essentially says this. The concept of "ʿasabiyyah" (Arabic: "tribalism, clanism, communitarism", or in a modern context, "group feeling" , "social cohesion", "solidarity" or even "nationalism") is one of the best known aspects of the Muqaddimah. As this ʿasabiyyah declines, another more compelling ʿasabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of ʿasabiyyah as they play out. Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the unity presented by those areas to their advantage in order to bring about a change in leadership. As the new rulers establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax and more concerned with maintaining their lifestyles. Thus, a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah From studying history a bit, I do agree that it's striking how often new powerful civilizations are formed from groups of people that existed on the periphery and had very little institutional power a generation or two beforehand. The Mongols, the Ottomans, and Napoleonic France are just a few examples.

gumby 4y ago
> Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. More recently, Hegel made the same point.
- nvartolomei 4y ago
  I’m curious about a reference for this.
  - keiferski 4y ago
    I am not an expert in Hegel or Ibn Khaldun, but I'm not sure that they're making the same point. I don't think Ibn Khaldun means that this process leads to progress; it's just a description of changes over time. The new civilization isn't necessarily superior or somehow more developed than the previous one. Hegel, on the other hand, is very much wrapped up in the "progress" concept: Hegel’s dialectical method leads to concepts or forms that are increasingly comprehensive and universal. As Hegel puts it, the result of the dialectical process, "is a new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/ Here's a (PDF) paper comparing the two thinkers: https://www.ajis.org/index.php/ajiss/article/view/2196 https://www.ajis.org/index.php/ajiss/article/view/2196

ketzo 4y ago

“Things you admire” is an extraordinarily broad category, so yeah, you probably could. But within the world of VC-backed tech companies, I do think “traditional” status markers are still very influential, and that when you dig into the About pages, the majority of founders/investors/current-high-status individuals come from high status backgrounds. A Yale degree is not the end-all be-all, and “Ex-Google” is not a magic key. But I do think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of people in tech (myself included!) benefit from very, very privileged backgrounds.

apsurd 4y ago
> I like writing things as if I know what I'm talking about (I don't) lol, made me smile. from your bio. its also important to acknowledge privilege is valuable but not necessary. i know we're saying the same thing but it's important for the people on the other side to see and say it from the other side. yale, xoogler are more bits of information the gatekeepers use. but not having those bits doesn't exclude oneself from the game. it's hard, being on the outside, i just want to make sure to say it. play another game. make another door. people like brand names. i get it it's a thing. it's just not the only thing. we choose to all play the same games using the same signals in the same way. looking backwards for trends forward. only we don't have to. because the future is unknown.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago

Unfortunately, this is rare because status traps blind people to these possibilities. I mean, look at this article’s comments: defense after defense of status as the most important thing. Bluntly: this article isn’t for you if you’re so invested in the idea of status. Given the quasi-finance values that tech represents now, I can’t say I’m super surprised. The author speaks of a life beyond such pursuits.