4 ms·

The prestige/dominance distinction is a naturally attractive idea because it lets us split status into "good" and "bad" kinds. I'm not sure, though, that there'

by dash2 3y ago

The prestige/dominance distinction is a naturally attractive idea because it lets us split status into "good" and "bad" kinds. I'm not sure, though, that there's much evidence that the two are truly separate. (To build intuition: in academia, or perhaps in the world of software engineering, it might be hard to distinguish between the two. Brilliant scientists often end up running a lab, and they may then have - and sometimes abuse! - a lot of raw power.) I think the first paper about this stuff was: Henrich J, Gil-White FJ: The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coevol_lab/files/henrich_gil-white_2001.pdf https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coev... There's a review here: http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf

jychang 3y ago
In real life, I’m sure prestige and dominance are mixed. Pure prestige and pure dominance would be hard to find. But I see it as a useful construct to delineate the differences regardless, because it maps pretty easily onto the traditional question of “is it better to be feared or loved”? Most people have been exposed to Machiavelli in one way or another, and understand the distinction between the carrot and stick.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Plenty of criminals, thugs and gang leaders are dominant but not prestigious. I'm not sure it's about fear vs love so much as fear vs aspiration and admiration. Prestigious people are widely admired - sometimes for reasonable reasons, sometimes for trivial ones, such as being funny, glib, and/or charismatic, and being a successful grifter and chancer. When you get individuals who combine perceived class and status with hardcore grift, either funny or passionately sincere/angry superficial glibness, perhaps some scapegoating, and some hints of dominance, you've built yourself a successful demagogue. The same applies to the more populist and opportunist religious leaders. And perhaps some startup founders and senior managers. It's hugely depressing to realise how inevitable this is. Most people assume they're making rational decisions about status interactions. They have no idea how their own software works - or even that they have software. The possibility that it might be flawed, biased, and easy to exploit is completely foreign to them.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think the thing that people Miss in the conversation is that Prestige and dominance don't have a single definition what are subjective to the individual perceiving them. The perception being subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a phenomenon and assessment metric.
logicchains 3y ago
Albert Einstein had a high degree of prestige but I don't think anyone would say he had dominance or significant power.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  Einstein essentially started the Manhattan Project with the Einstein Szilard letter. He was a signatory because his name carried weight with the president and he knew the Belgian royal family. I don't know what you would call that except social power coming from prestige.

by dash2 3y ago

jychang 3y ago

In real life, I’m sure prestige and dominance are mixed. Pure prestige and pure dominance would be hard to find. But I see it as a useful construct to delineate the differences regardless, because it maps pretty easily onto the traditional question of “is it better to be feared or loved”? Most people have been exposed to Machiavelli in one way or another, and understand the distinction between the carrot and stick.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Plenty of criminals, thugs and gang leaders are dominant but not prestigious. I'm not sure it's about fear vs love so much as fear vs aspiration and admiration. Prestigious people are widely admired - sometimes for reasonable reasons, sometimes for trivial ones, such as being funny, glib, and/or charismatic, and being a successful grifter and chancer. When you get individuals who combine perceived class and status with hardcore grift, either funny or passionately sincere/angry superficial glibness, perhaps some scapegoating, and some hints of dominance, you've built yourself a successful demagogue. The same applies to the more populist and opportunist religious leaders. And perhaps some startup founders and senior managers. It's hugely depressing to realise how inevitable this is. Most people assume they're making rational decisions about status interactions. They have no idea how their own software works - or even that they have software. The possibility that it might be flawed, biased, and easy to exploit is completely foreign to them.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think the thing that people Miss in the conversation is that Prestige and dominance don't have a single definition what are subjective to the individual perceiving them. The perception being subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a phenomenon and assessment metric.

logicchains 3y ago

Albert Einstein had a high degree of prestige but I don't think anyone would say he had dominance or significant power.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
Einstein essentially started the Manhattan Project with the Einstein Szilard letter. He was a signatory because his name carried weight with the president and he knew the Belgian royal family. I don't know what you would call that except social power coming from prestige.