24 ms·

This is a long, but brilliant essay. I especially enjoyed the section on Music Instruments about 1/4 down the page. The theme argues the idea that civilizatio

by diydsp 12y ago

This is a long, but brilliant essay. I especially enjoyed the section on Music Instruments about 1/4 down the page. The theme argues the idea that civilization/society/humans create for the sake of social status, not for the effect of the creation. For example: We choose to learn to play guitar to "be cool," or piano to indicate we want to be thought of as high-class rather than because we value the sounds of either of these instruments. This can be incredibly earth-shattering to realize. I hope it's not 100% true, but there is plenty of evidence to show it is. This type of thinking may also inform the famous "Mac vs. PC vs. Linux" debates. Do we choose our OS based on it's social significance or its technical, productive and visual benefits?

calpaterson 12y ago
It's not a novel idea - consumption for identity purposes is a very, very old and well explored meme: https://www.google.co.uk/?q=consumption%20and%20identity#q=consumption+and+identity https://www.google.co.uk/?q=consumption%20and%20identity#q=c... A lot of basic sales books/courses discuss it. I've met a few people in the traditional publishing and they seem to well understand that the majority of books sold are never read. I am actually having great trouble getting motivated to read the whole essay. Gwern's writing suffers a lot from poor sequencing, excessive footnotes/hyperlinks/digressions and a general reluctance/inability to summarise. Wish he could find a way to make his writing "skim-able", so that I can at least tell what the rough subject is before investing an hour to understand it.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Yeah. When I write like this, it's because I'm really writing for me. It's my way of processing a topic. But if I'm going to publish something, I'd rather write for the reader. I just threw out half a book manuscript because I realized that while my intended audience was novice entrepreneurs, my actual audience would be grizzled, grumpy old veterans like myself. Eventually I hope I'll start fresh and really write for my readers.
wpietri 12y ago
We are social animals, hardwired for status, so it's pretty easy to find status elements in anything we do. But I think it's a mistake to say that because X has a status aspect, it's about status. I also think this argument assumes everybody's optimizing for a particular characteristic: sound. But for most decisions people are satisficers [1], not optimizers. If one tries instruments more or less at random until one crosses the "good enough" line, then instrument choice will mainly be about availability. In which case, people will tend to converge on a small number of instruments without any need for "cool" as an explanation. There are also other characteristics people value about instruments. For example, the ability to play with other people, or the ability to participate in a style of music that they like. Those are definitionally social, but not necessarily driven by status-seeking. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
derefr 12y ago
And insofar as human intelligence evolved for the sake of being able to use "hypocritical" strategies in iterated tribe-sized prisoners' dilemmas (a constant refrain of economists like Robin Hanson), art (in its propagandist status-enhancing role) is the fulcrum by which sentience was plucked out of the evolutionary soup. We do not produce art such that there will be better art to consume; we consume art as an alliance maneuver such that when we have something important (and self-serving) to say, others will listen. And, of course, we make this game-theoretic compromise completely unconsciously; it is an adaptation we are merely executing.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Does your model yield any novel predictions other than a smug feeling for you?
davidgerard 12y ago
Well, yes. This shows the way forward for artists in the Silver Age of way too much plenty: work those niches.

by diydsp 12y ago

calpaterson 12y ago

It's not a novel idea - consumption for identity purposes is a very, very old and well explored meme: https://www.google.co.uk/?q=consumption%20and%20identity#q=consumption+and+identity https://www.google.co.uk/?q=consumption%20and%20identity#q=c... A lot of basic sales books/courses discuss it. I've met a few people in the traditional publishing and they seem to well understand that the majority of books sold are never read. I am actually having great trouble getting motivated to read the whole essay. Gwern's writing suffers a lot from poor sequencing, excessive footnotes/hyperlinks/digressions and a general reluctance/inability to summarise. Wish he could find a way to make his writing "skim-able", so that I can at least tell what the rough subject is before investing an hour to understand it.

wpietri 12y ago
Yeah. When I write like this, it's because I'm really writing for me. It's my way of processing a topic. But if I'm going to publish something, I'd rather write for the reader. I just threw out half a book manuscript because I realized that while my intended audience was novice entrepreneurs, my actual audience would be grizzled, grumpy old veterans like myself. Eventually I hope I'll start fresh and really write for my readers.

wpietri 12y ago

We are social animals, hardwired for status, so it's pretty easy to find status elements in anything we do. But I think it's a mistake to say that because X has a status aspect, it's about status. I also think this argument assumes everybody's optimizing for a particular characteristic: sound. But for most decisions people are satisficers [1], not optimizers. If one tries instruments more or less at random until one crosses the "good enough" line, then instrument choice will mainly be about availability. In which case, people will tend to converge on a small number of instruments without any need for "cool" as an explanation. There are also other characteristics people value about instruments. For example, the ability to play with other people, or the ability to participate in a style of music that they like. Those are definitionally social, but not necessarily driven by status-seeking. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

derefr 12y ago

And insofar as human intelligence evolved for the sake of being able to use "hypocritical" strategies in iterated tribe-sized prisoners' dilemmas (a constant refrain of economists like Robin Hanson), art (in its propagandist status-enhancing role) is the fulcrum by which sentience was plucked out of the evolutionary soup. We do not produce art such that there will be better art to consume; we consume art as an alliance maneuver such that when we have something important (and self-serving) to say, others will listen. And, of course, we make this game-theoretic compromise completely unconsciously; it is an adaptation we are merely executing.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Does your model yield any novel predictions other than a smug feeling for you?

davidgerard 12y ago

Well, yes. This shows the way forward for artists in the Silver Age of way too much plenty: work those niches.