4 ms·

> 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 p

> 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....
  - fellowniusmonk 3y ago
    Original question: > How do you explain that some people are not sensitive to social status? You're interpretation of that question: > The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it. As a 3rd party observer I don't have confidence that the original question and your interpretation of it are equivalent, perhaps OP could provide clarity.
    - graeme 3y ago
      Look one comment higher to the original comment that question was in reply to: >In the brain, serotonin seems to be deeply related to social status. This is Jordan Peterson's bit about lobsters - it's so ubiquitous that even lobsters share the same mechanism. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36310589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36310589
      - fellowniusmonk 3y ago
        I think you must have been commenting on a different thread and accidentally posted your response in this one. It seems off topic or just like your reposting the same thread in reverse order without actually reading it? Very confusing.
        graeme 3y ago
        You cited the post I replied to. I just replied with the post one level up from that one. OP says: social status is baked into us at a biochemical level another commentor: How do you explain why some people are insentive to status You cited the 2nd commentor. I was linking that top comment to show you that both comments are linked in terms of framing the subject.
DirkH 3y ago
As an observer, I'm beginning to think you two have very different meanings of the words "social status" and if you both first operationalized it you both might find you actually agree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization
- blueflow 3y ago
  They write to be seen. That's why they use their real name and have a bio in their profile. And a link to a website where you can see their face and name and score. For me its the discord that gives me pleasure. Disagreeing and teasing. To the extent that dang reprimanded me for flaming. Also I'm a nobody and i do not consider that a problem. So i'm largely selfish, not motivated by the status others attribute to me. We write on HN for different reasons. They assumed that their reason is something universal. Just a tiny mistake.
- graeme 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm using the definition of status from improv, which I think actually captures how people act and feel. The discussion started based on what people feel biochemically and that's based on our daily actions and actual status, rather than our formal social rank. I would be surprised to learn anyone is truly immune from status in this sense. "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....

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....
- fellowniusmonk 3y ago
  Original question: > How do you explain that some people are not sensitive to social status? You're interpretation of that question: > The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it. As a 3rd party observer I don't have confidence that the original question and your interpretation of it are equivalent, perhaps OP could provide clarity.
  - graeme 3y ago
    Look one comment higher to the original comment that question was in reply to: >In the brain, serotonin seems to be deeply related to social status. This is Jordan Peterson's bit about lobsters - it's so ubiquitous that even lobsters share the same mechanism. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36310589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36310589
    - fellowniusmonk 3y ago
      I think you must have been commenting on a different thread and accidentally posted your response in this one. It seems off topic or just like your reposting the same thread in reverse order without actually reading it? Very confusing.
      - graeme 3y ago
        You cited the post I replied to. I just replied with the post one level up from that one. OP says: social status is baked into us at a biochemical level another commentor: How do you explain why some people are insentive to status You cited the 2nd commentor. I was linking that top comment to show you that both comments are linked in terms of framing the subject.

DirkH 3y ago

As an observer, I'm beginning to think you two have very different meanings of the words "social status" and if you both first operationalized it you both might find you actually agree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization

blueflow 3y ago
They write to be seen. That's why they use their real name and have a bio in their profile. And a link to a website where you can see their face and name and score. For me its the discord that gives me pleasure. Disagreeing and teasing. To the extent that dang reprimanded me for flaming. Also I'm a nobody and i do not consider that a problem. So i'm largely selfish, not motivated by the status others attribute to me. We write on HN for different reasons. They assumed that their reason is something universal. Just a tiny mistake.
graeme 3y ago
Yeah, I'm using the definition of status from improv, which I think actually captures how people act and feel. The discussion started based on what people feel biochemically and that's based on our daily actions and actual status, rather than our formal social rank. I would be surprised to learn anyone is truly immune from status in this sense. "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....