4 ms·

I meant more of a historical or public figure, where the claim could be assessed to some degree. Because "do not care" is internal and can only really be judge

by graeme 3y ago

I meant more of a historical or public figure, where the claim could be assessed to some degree. Because "do not care" is internal and can only really be judged indirectly. Saying "I do not care" is one of those things where it can both genuinely be said or where it is a countersignal. The claim is NOT however "does this person care about the esteem of their coworkers" or "does this person care to be seen". Status can be had in other ways. For example, you work, you write on Hacker news, you have 3,000+ karma - no easy feat. One way of measuring status would be whether you were pleased or disappointed by someone's reaction to something you did. Either in person or virtually. Whether for work, a hobby, or for fun. This truly is not an experience you have?

svnt 3y ago
This appears to be broadening the definition to avoid losing the contested point. Lobsters also have a sex drive, but not everything is sexual.
- graeme 3y ago
  The original claim is that some people are not "sensitive to status". It was an incredibly broad claim. I would agree with weaker claims such as "many people care less about status" or "many people ignore loss of status to pursue other goals".
  - svnt 3y ago
    Some people are asexual.
blueflow 3y ago
> For example, you work, you write on Hacker news, you have 3,000+ karma - no easy feat. I'm procrastinating because my dayjob is boring. Isn't this what all people on HN do? Edit: Implication, do you write for social status? You even have a bio and use your actual name. > One way of measuring status would be whether you were pleased or disappointed by someone's reaction to something you did. I laugh when i deliver some good burn. But that's not gaining social status, its just being mean.
- fellowniusmonk 3y ago
  It's always weird to me when people cannot fathom that others think and operate differently, here we have an entire thread of people essentially insisting that social status _must_ matter to everyone. I'm on the spectrum and growing up I worked with special needs kids with my mother as she ran a non-profit focused on specials needs community. Let me tell you, some people are simply not cognizant of social status and there's a whole swath of people who are passingly aware but find it irrelevant to their life. Solitary creatures that go their own way exist in all kinds of highly social species. This thread feels akin to threads you occasionally see where a bunch of selfish people insist altruistic acts _cannot_ exist. Their insistent claims against the possibility of altruistic acts only reveal their internal state, they aren't high quality arguments, just assumptive assertions by people who can't imagine alternate mental states. Some people just want to spend their lonely numbered days free.
  - graeme 3y ago
    The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it. It is an incredibly broad claim. I would readily agree that many people are happy on their own, go against the majority, do not care much for society, aloof from social opinion, etc. But the claim that some people are literally immune to status strikes me as implausible. It would imply, for example, that people on the spectrum are literally unbothered by being mocked, insulted, berated, laughed at, rejected, abandoned and so on. Is that truly what you're claiming? I took this broad definition of status from Improv. This is the actual status one would be sensitive to or not on a biochemical level, because it addresses our feelings and actions as they exist, rather than what our title or formal status says. "Keith Johnstone understands status as something one does, independent of the social status one has. Social status represents one's rank in a social order. At the upper end are secular and spiritual leaders (kings, priests), at the bottom end, dependents and outcasts. Social rank is approximately demonstrated through offices, titles, awards, and status symbols. Johnstone's "status", on the other hand, comes from the behavior of the characters in a specific encounter. He stresses that there is no neutral status; rather, some sort of difference is always present. A good actor is always conscious of the relative status of the portrayed characters and can playfully vary it." https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/status#:~:text=In%20improvisational%20theater%2C%20%22status%22,character%20in%20a%20lower%20status https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/status#:~:text=In%20imp....

by graeme 3y ago

svnt 3y ago

This appears to be broadening the definition to avoid losing the contested point. Lobsters also have a sex drive, but not everything is sexual.

graeme 3y ago
The original claim is that some people are not "sensitive to status". It was an incredibly broad claim. I would agree with weaker claims such as "many people care less about status" or "many people ignore loss of status to pursue other goals".
- svnt 3y ago
  Some people are asexual.

blueflow 3y ago

> For example, you work, you write on Hacker news, you have 3,000+ karma - no easy feat. I'm procrastinating because my dayjob is boring. Isn't this what all people on HN do? Edit: Implication, do you write for social status? You even have a bio and use your actual name. > One way of measuring status would be whether you were pleased or disappointed by someone's reaction to something you did. I laugh when i deliver some good burn. But that's not gaining social status, its just being mean.

fellowniusmonk 3y ago
It's always weird to me when people cannot fathom that others think and operate differently, here we have an entire thread of people essentially insisting that social status _must_ matter to everyone. I'm on the spectrum and growing up I worked with special needs kids with my mother as she ran a non-profit focused on specials needs community. Let me tell you, some people are simply not cognizant of social status and there's a whole swath of people who are passingly aware but find it irrelevant to their life. Solitary creatures that go their own way exist in all kinds of highly social species. This thread feels akin to threads you occasionally see where a bunch of selfish people insist altruistic acts _cannot_ exist. Their insistent claims against the possibility of altruistic acts only reveal their internal state, they aren't high quality arguments, just assumptive assertions by people who can't imagine alternate mental states. Some people just want to spend their lonely numbered days free.
- graeme 3y ago
  The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it. It is an incredibly broad claim. I would readily agree that many people are happy on their own, go against the majority, do not care much for society, aloof from social opinion, etc. But the claim that some people are literally immune to status strikes me as implausible. It would imply, for example, that people on the spectrum are literally unbothered by being mocked, insulted, berated, laughed at, rejected, abandoned and so on. Is that truly what you're claiming? I took this broad definition of status from Improv. This is the actual status one would be sensitive to or not on a biochemical level, because it addresses our feelings and actions as they exist, rather than what our title or formal status says. "Keith Johnstone understands status as something one does, independent of the social status one has. Social status represents one's rank in a social order. At the upper end are secular and spiritual leaders (kings, priests), at the bottom end, dependents and outcasts. Social rank is approximately demonstrated through offices, titles, awards, and status symbols. Johnstone's "status", on the other hand, comes from the behavior of the characters in a specific encounter. He stresses that there is no neutral status; rather, some sort of difference is always present. A good actor is always conscious of the relative status of the portrayed characters and can playfully vary it." https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/status#:~:text=In%20improvisational%20theater%2C%20%22status%22,character%20in%20a%20lower%20status https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/status#:~:text=In%20imp....