3 ms·

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 delineat

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.

3 ms·

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 delineat

by jychang 3y ago

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.