4 ms·

"Cate Hall is Astera's CEO. She's a former Supreme Court attorney and the ex-No. 1 female poker player in the world." This article is countersignaling. It also

"Cate Hall is Astera's CEO. She's a former Supreme Court attorney and the ex-No. 1 female poker player in the world." This article is countersignaling. It also happens to be directionally correct. There is absolutely nothing low status about being present-day Cate Hall. But present-day Cate Hall probably tried and pushed through a lot of really tough stuff in part because yesteryear Cate Hall had this mindset. It so happened that she also had the talent to actually end up in impressive places. The real lesson one should probably take from a person like this is that learning to eyeball your own strengths and weaknesses before you start down the long path of honing them is really important. If you are low status now but you have reason to believe you will become much higher status in the future by persevering, then persevere. If not...

baxtr 1y ago
Encouraging people to be low status in order to have high status is a genius way to create a new status game.
FlyingSnake 1y ago
Be wary of imitating high status people who can afford to counter signal. https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high-status https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high...
ImaCake 1y ago
Thanks for pointing out that it is counter signalling, but I would also say that it is good advice regardless. It's like an efficient highway - the road is straight and unadorned because looking "scientific" and sensible is how you convince government and the public it is a good idea. The fact that being efficient is also a net good is almost a side effect but still not to be ignored!
e1g 1y ago
She’s a VC-backed founder who went to Yale, and her very first job was at Goldman. What she’s describing in the article is not “low status” because she hadn’t experienced that. But the feeling she describes reveals what she thinks “low status” is - embarrassment.
- samdoesnothing 1y ago
  It's relative, you can be low status in one group and high status in another and be the exact same person. Sounds like from the online bullying she suffered from at Yale, she was low status there.
  - jagged-chisel 1y ago
    I’d like to understand the thinking of those who downvoted and flagged this comment.
    - Rexxar 1y ago
      It was "[dead]" or "[flagged]" ? If it was the first it was automatic and probably caused by previous comments, not by this one. New accounts (green name) can be auto-flagged quite fast if they have downvotes or reports on multiple comments.
      - jagged-chisel 1y ago
        At this point, I remember it as flagged. I'm reasonably confident that my memory is correct.
- hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
  Getting into Yale is indeed pretty good prima facie evidence that you have what it takes to be high status in the future, in quite a few domains. Persevering is great advice for most people along most trajectories who get into Yale.
  - kragen 1y ago
    It's not just a question of potential. Getting into Yale directly confers high status, and it is fairly well gated by other status-related tests: honors classes and private schools nudge you to learn the kind of thinking that does well on the SAT, not the kind of thinking that keeps you out of danger, as well as pushing you to AP exam prep classes; and access to extracurricular activities is gated both implicitly (by school choice) and explicitly by disciplinary measures for low-status behaviors. Rednecks like JD Vance are a tiny minority of the Yale entering class, and lower-status groups like illegal immigrants are as far as I know completely absent. Also, I think the idea that there is something that it takes to be high status is incorrect. Social status is its own phenomenon with its own rules, and sometimes it's pretty random: you get a good job against the odds, or a good spouse, or you narrowly escape a disabling accident. You could argue that "what it takes" in such cases is luck, but graduating from Yale doesn't indicate that you will be lucky in the future, only of things that have happened before that.
posix86 1y ago
Talented people don't have to go through as much embarrassment as others because they learn faster than normal & will impress through that, even if they're worse at what they're doing. Also, once you are truly good at something, it's easier to be bad at something else. But not disagreeing with her.
nine_k 1y ago
A: Actually, money isn't really important. B: It must feel good to say so when you have the money. A: It does. (Quoting from memory, can't remember the movie.)
joe_the_user 1y ago
This article is countersignaling. It also happens to be directionally correct. As far as I can tell, you jargony phrase means that this is something like the humble part of "humble bragging". I'd disagree, I think the article gives honest good advice, an honest "meta-analysis" of social status and jumping into new things. It's "actionable", something you can do. I would add that its advice for the sort of person who is normally always thinking about and fairly competent with social status and is held back from new skills by this. I personally was never too worried about social status and have learned massive new things by just being willing to try them but wound-up bitten by my ignoring of status. My advice for my younger me is to be strategic about publicly ignoring status but keep going into private. Also statements like "she succeeded 'cause she was tough" are meaningless as advice or actionable/verifiable statements. Maybe she succeeded 'cause she had a bunch of strategies like the one she outlines, maybe she succeeded 'cause of good luck, maybe she succeed by family positions, maybe "luck", "toughness" or "mojo" did it.
- hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
  >statements like "she succeeded 'cause she was tough" are meaningless as advice or actionable/verifiable statements The action you are supposed to take from this is to figure out whether you're tough, and if you find out you're not, to give up and go to something else you're better suited for. This seems like exceptionally actionable advice - just not advice that strokes anyone's ego. I will give you an example. When I was 17 I spent exactly one day as a door to door canvasser for an environmental charity. I got dropped off into a neighborhood I had never seen before, told to walk up to people's doors and beg them for money for something I was pretty sure wasn't particularly effective at solving anything important, and then do this about a hundred times. Door #1 gave me one dollar. Door #2 let me call my parents in tears to come pick me up. Whatever Unusual characteristic that particular job needed, I did not have it. I do not have it to this day.

baxtr 1y ago

Encouraging people to be low status in order to have high status is a genius way to create a new status game.

FlyingSnake 1y ago

Be wary of imitating high status people who can afford to counter signal. https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high-status https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/the-perils-of-imitating-high...

ImaCake 1y ago

Thanks for pointing out that it is counter signalling, but I would also say that it is good advice regardless. It's like an efficient highway - the road is straight and unadorned because looking "scientific" and sensible is how you convince government and the public it is a good idea. The fact that being efficient is also a net good is almost a side effect but still not to be ignored!

e1g 1y ago

She’s a VC-backed founder who went to Yale, and her very first job was at Goldman. What she’s describing in the article is not “low status” because she hadn’t experienced that. But the feeling she describes reveals what she thinks “low status” is - embarrassment.

samdoesnothing 1y ago
It's relative, you can be low status in one group and high status in another and be the exact same person. Sounds like from the online bullying she suffered from at Yale, she was low status there.
- jagged-chisel 1y ago
  I’d like to understand the thinking of those who downvoted and flagged this comment.
  - Rexxar 1y ago
    It was "[dead]" or "[flagged]" ? If it was the first it was automatic and probably caused by previous comments, not by this one. New accounts (green name) can be auto-flagged quite fast if they have downvotes or reports on multiple comments.
    - jagged-chisel 1y ago
      At this point, I remember it as flagged. I'm reasonably confident that my memory is correct.
hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
Getting into Yale is indeed pretty good prima facie evidence that you have what it takes to be high status in the future, in quite a few domains. Persevering is great advice for most people along most trajectories who get into Yale.
- kragen 1y ago
  It's not just a question of potential. Getting into Yale directly confers high status, and it is fairly well gated by other status-related tests: honors classes and private schools nudge you to learn the kind of thinking that does well on the SAT, not the kind of thinking that keeps you out of danger, as well as pushing you to AP exam prep classes; and access to extracurricular activities is gated both implicitly (by school choice) and explicitly by disciplinary measures for low-status behaviors. Rednecks like JD Vance are a tiny minority of the Yale entering class, and lower-status groups like illegal immigrants are as far as I know completely absent. Also, I think the idea that there is something that it takes to be high status is incorrect. Social status is its own phenomenon with its own rules, and sometimes it's pretty random: you get a good job against the odds, or a good spouse, or you narrowly escape a disabling accident. You could argue that "what it takes" in such cases is luck, but graduating from Yale doesn't indicate that you will be lucky in the future, only of things that have happened before that.

posix86 1y ago

Talented people don't have to go through as much embarrassment as others because they learn faster than normal & will impress through that, even if they're worse at what they're doing. Also, once you are truly good at something, it's easier to be bad at something else. But not disagreeing with her.

nine_k 1y ago

A: Actually, money isn't really important. B: It must feel good to say so when you have the money. A: It does. (Quoting from memory, can't remember the movie.)

joe_the_user 1y ago

This article is countersignaling. It also happens to be directionally correct. As far as I can tell, you jargony phrase means that this is something like the humble part of "humble bragging". I'd disagree, I think the article gives honest good advice, an honest "meta-analysis" of social status and jumping into new things. It's "actionable", something you can do. I would add that its advice for the sort of person who is normally always thinking about and fairly competent with social status and is held back from new skills by this. I personally was never too worried about social status and have learned massive new things by just being willing to try them but wound-up bitten by my ignoring of status. My advice for my younger me is to be strategic about publicly ignoring status but keep going into private. Also statements like "she succeeded 'cause she was tough" are meaningless as advice or actionable/verifiable statements. Maybe she succeeded 'cause she had a bunch of strategies like the one she outlines, maybe she succeeded 'cause of good luck, maybe she succeed by family positions, maybe "luck", "toughness" or "mojo" did it.

hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
>statements like "she succeeded 'cause she was tough" are meaningless as advice or actionable/verifiable statements The action you are supposed to take from this is to figure out whether you're tough, and if you find out you're not, to give up and go to something else you're better suited for. This seems like exceptionally actionable advice - just not advice that strokes anyone's ego. I will give you an example. When I was 17 I spent exactly one day as a door to door canvasser for an environmental charity. I got dropped off into a neighborhood I had never seen before, told to walk up to people's doors and beg them for money for something I was pretty sure wasn't particularly effective at solving anything important, and then do this about a hundred times. Door #1 gave me one dollar. Door #2 let me call my parents in tears to come pick me up. Whatever Unusual characteristic that particular job needed, I did not have it. I do not have it to this day.