Estimated time: 5 mins
In the book Inadequate Equilibria, Eliezer Yudkowsky claims to be someone who is somewhat “blind” to status hierarchies, and doesn’t feel it in the same way that most people seem to.
I found this intriguing. I’ve certainly experienced situations where I didn’t notice some status play or shift until I reflected upon it, or it was spelt out to me. So Yudkowsky’s comment made me question whether I, too, was “status blind”.
Status is domain-specific
I don’t think “status” is a single thing. I think it’s domain-specific. When people talk about it without specifying a domain, they’re usually describing conventional markers of success, like prestigious jobs, wealth, social popularity, or simply raw power. I suspect part of why Yudkowsky thinks he’s blind to “status” is because he doesn’t value these conventional markers. On these measures, I’m not exactly status “blind”, but my vision isn’t 20/20, either.
There are other domains, like art and fashion, in which I am truly status-blind. These are areas I care very little about, so remarks intended to signal status in these domains will fly straight over my head.
Yet there are still other domains, like intelligence, in which I am highly sensitive to status. When talking to new people, I’m acutely aware of statements that convey information about their level of intelligence.1I’m not proud of this. Growing up, I placed a lot of value on intelligence—particularly fluid intelligence—without giving it much thought. I was shocked when, in my 20s, a friend called me an “intelligence snob” and pointed out being smart wasn’t everyone’s thing. Since then, I’ve made a conscious effort to place less weight on raw intelligence. I still greatly value “having well-informed and considered opinions”, but intelligence is no guarantee of that. Curiosity and humility are also important. So I’d call myself a recovering intelligence snob. Intelligence is a conventionally-valued domain, probably because it correlates reasonably well with some conventional markers of success. However, the correlation is not perfect. Lower-IQ people can outperform higher-IQ people on some conventional measures, because things like hard work and social skills also matter.
So if you care about intelligence rather than wealth, the status games you play may overlap with, but ultimately differ from, the games played by those who value wealth alone.
Every status game looks silly from the outside… but makes sense from the inside
Every status game is based around some value.
In addition to the above, status games exist for things like physical strength, toughness, attractiveness, sense of humour, musical talent, athletic ability, cooking ability, public speaking skills, productivity, frugality, parenting, devoutness and being well-travelled.
If you don’t care about the value underlying a status game, any effort put into that game looks silly. You might sneer at the effort someone puts into looking good. They might roll their eyes at the time and money you spend trying to become ‘cultured’. Even a status game based on behaving ethically, which some consider to be evidently good, won’t make sense to someone who derives status from being subversive and outsmarting others.
But when you care about a certain domain, it makes sense to care about status in that domain. We want to find out who’s around our level because they could be our friends or competition. We also want to work out who’s at a higher level, so that we may learn from them.
If Sally’s a passionate skier, then judging others based on their skiing ability makes perfect sense. When meeting new people, Sally wants to know who she can ski with and who’d be likely to help lift her game. She may also want to find out which resorts they frequent, so she could meet up with them on trips.
I’m not suggesting we consciously think in such rational terms. To the contrary—I believe our status assessments are mostly intuitive. But I suspect our intuitions developed this way precisely because they served such a useful function.
Of course, even if there are good reasons why Sally might care a lot about other people’s skiing abilities, it doesn’t mean she has to treat non-skiers with less respect or decency. For a harmless domain like skiing, this is obvious. We all know there’s far more to life than your performance on the slopes. But the same applies to the domains we care most deeply about. It’s just much harder to see there.
All values are subjective
I believe that what we ultimately value and care about is subjective and outside the realm of logic.
Some values—like those conventional markers of success—are widely held, which may make us think they are objectively valuable. But I personally don’t believe any values are fully objective.2Worth pointing out that most moral philosophers disagree with me on this and accept or lean towards moral realism — see 2020 survey. Even if I’m wrong and something like “utility” is an objective value, I maintain that what gives people utility remains subjective.
Logic can play a role in our determining our instrumental values (values that help us achieve some other value). For example, if I value hard work because I think it will make me rich, I may stop valuing it if I find out it doesn’t necessarily do that. Similarly, if I value “being rich” because I think it will make others respect me, I may stop upon finding out the people most important to me don’t care about it at all.
But logic isn’t where our ultimate values come from, so logic cannot alter those values.
Conclusion
So, to summarise:
- we play different types of status games because we have different values;
- every status game looks silly to people who don’t share those values; and
- values are ultimately subjective and outside the realm of logic.
Have some thoughts on status games? Please share in the comments below!
- 1I’m not proud of this. Growing up, I placed a lot of value on intelligence—particularly fluid intelligence—without giving it much thought. I was shocked when, in my 20s, a friend called me an “intelligence snob” and pointed out being smart wasn’t everyone’s thing. Since then, I’ve made a conscious effort to place less weight on raw intelligence. I still greatly value “having well-informed and considered opinions”, but intelligence is no guarantee of that. Curiosity and humility are also important. So I’d call myself a recovering intelligence snob.
- 2Worth pointing out that most moral philosophers disagree with me on this and accept or lean towards moral realism — see 2020 survey. Even if I’m wrong and something like “utility” is an objective value, I maintain that what gives people utility remains subjective.