[HN Gopher] Choose Your Status Game Wisely
___________________________________________________________________
Choose Your Status Game Wisely
Author : throw0101a
Score : 88 points
Date : 2022-03-30 12:05 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ofdollarsanddata.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ofdollarsanddata.com)
| _def wrote:
| Thinking about this stuff seems like a waste of time to me. If
| you think status makes you happy, I assume there are still some
| things you need to figure out for yourself. But maybe it's the
| other way around, who knows. Still, I don't care. :)
| angarg12 wrote:
| Not sure how this will sit with the HN crowd, but a couple of
| years back I got into menswear, and I derive some pleasure from
| being the "best dressed guy" at the office.
|
| Beyond personal opinions on that particular hobby, I can confirm
| first hand that living at the intersection of two or more
| personas (e.g. a programmer that dresses well) brings a peculiar
| sense of joy. I might no have much status in either of those
| categories, but bringing both together makes you stand out more.
| derbOac wrote:
| There's some wisdom in this post but it kinda sidesteps for me
| one of the biggest problems I see with status seeking, which is
| at some point it seems to -- or at least can -- increasingly
| involve randomness, corruption, or increasingly unsubstantiable
| goals. It's like a variant of Goodhart's Law or Campbell's law,
| but involving randomness and invalidity in addition to
| corruption, and where those laws also become more important the
| further you go up the metric dimension.
|
| Even putting aside the issues of value, in the sense of "should I
| value status in this area", there's this other issue: if you have
| a metric that's, say, correlated .2 or .3 with some underlying
| attribute, then almost by statistical definition as you start
| splitting hairs more and more you're splitting up more and more
| noise. As you chase status further and further, you're dealing
| with that more and more.
|
| Maybe this is the same thing as his analogy about instability in
| hierarchies at some level. But if so I'm not sure the
| implications are followed as far as they could be.
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| Sometimes you see articles like this that insist that you have to
| play a status game of some kind etc etc. The hacker in me sees
| that as even more reason to look for examples of ways alleviate
| myself of such nonsense.
|
| If you read books like "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman" you run
| across stories of him playing with Status games and poking fun at
| them. Though I'm sure one could argue Feynman had status games he
| played in his own way.
|
| In any case thats always the attitude I've preferred to take
| towards status. I just don't know how anyone can take themselves
| so seriously in a world where the highest paid and smartest among
| us wear rainbow hats with propellers.
|
| Don't take life so seriously and goof around a little more. Thats
| how you turn up interesting ideas anyway, not by playing status
| games.
| kansface wrote:
| Somewhat ironically, refusing to acknowledge or honor
| conventional status games is itself a status increasing play
| among hackers, which invalidates the spirit of the advice if
| not the advice itself! This is also probably terrible advice
| for a different milieu.
| YawningAngel wrote:
| It seems strange to me to use a Nobel prize-winning physicist
| as an example of someone who didn't play status games
| planetsprite wrote:
| Feynman's secret is that he was a legitimate super-genius
| with the charisma of a normal guy who happened to luck into
| all his achievements. In reality it couldn't be farther from
| the truth, but there's nothing more appealing to an average
| person than an exceptional person who gives the impression
| that being like him is achievable.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| > rainbow hats with propellers
|
| Would you call such a thing a status symbol? Something
| glorified in certain circles and disregarded in others?
|
| The author clearly explained that removing yourself from status
| games just ends up putting you in a different status game (his
| metalhead days).
|
| The reality is that you have many statuses irrespective of
| whether you want it or not merely as a function of being in a
| group. I suppose by not being in any groups you would accrue
| status among people that value that too.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| Status usually represents having done some social good. The
| more good you do, the higher your status. If you look at it as
| a measure of how much good a person has done, then it might not
| seem so contemptable. Who did more good for more people - a
| hermit or Bill Gates?
| joshuacc wrote:
| Many cultures and religions would say that the hermit did, or
| at least might have. :)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Status usually represents having done some social good._
|
| For whatever value of "good" applies in that particular
| social network, yes. But that value of "good" might not be
| anything we would call "good" in ordinary language.
|
| For example, Bill Gates does have high status, but he has it
| because he is rich, not because of the particular things he
| did that made him rich. Those things happened to be
| reasonably beneficial (how much so depends on your opinion of
| Windows and Microsoft, and opinions on that can...vary), but
| many other rich people got that way by doing things that were
| not. Yet they still get status according to their wealth.
| lordnacho wrote:
| His kids will have higher status than most people, what did
| they do?
| wowokay wrote:
| I agree. I can understand that the article is focused on
| pointing out that everyone seems status in some way or another,
| but I think it is fair to say that somethings shouldn't really
| be considered status. Working for money, fame, influence. Those
| are pursuits some people have no interest in, I don't think
| it's fair to say someone who cares about their family, or
| hanging out with friends view those activities with the same
| lust people chasing money, power, etc, do. Maybe there is more
| to be said about how individuals view their "status" pursuits
| then labeling everyone as animals pursuing status.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Who is more cool?
|
| Somebody who makes it clear they're wealthy or well connected or
| attractive or smart or etc...
|
| Or somebody who is upbeat and friendly with no desire to display
| anything about themselves?
|
| There's a minority of people who go by their own compass. The
| things that gratify status seekers don't do it for them. That's
| not to say they don't have needs. They need friends, stimulation,
| hobbies, achievements. But they recognize it as a personal thing.
|
| There's also people who are so far down the status chain that
| they don't relate to it any more, and have stopped trying.
| Aunche wrote:
| On the other hand, if you don't signal your intelligence and
| connections, how is anyone supposed to know they can depend on
| your intelligence and connections? There's definitely a
| balance.
| phpnode wrote:
| > Who is more cool?
|
| > Somebody who makes it clear they're wealthy or well connected
| or attractive or smart or etc...
|
| > Or somebody who is upbeat and friendly with no desire to
| display anything about themselves?
|
| The first one. It's the first one.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| These groups are not mutually exclusive. Is the wealthy person
| an asshole? Is the upbeat person poor? How poor? How much of an
| asshole? It's a silly example.
| insickness wrote:
| > Or somebody who is upbeat and friendly with no desire to
| display anything about themselves?
|
| Just because a person isn't outwardly status-seeking doesn't
| mean they don't display anything about themselves. They may
| seem like they don't care what anyone thinks about them, but if
| everyone thought they were a pedophile, they would hate it,
| regardless of the legal ramifications. It's human nature to
| care about what others think about us. We all 'display' in some
| sense or another, whether it's how we dress, what we accomplish
| or how we want others to perceive us. Humans are extremely
| social creatures.
| philipov wrote:
| I was just thinking the same thing. Acting as if you don't
| need to make status displays is itself a status display: it
| is a show of confidence.
| pgorczak wrote:
| The parent comment hints at another interpretation of status,
| which is also used in improv. The status you "play" in your
| interaction with others, which can be different from your
| social status (https://www.respect4acting.com/status1.html)
|
| This kind of status is much more dynamic and it's also
| something you can choose to give or take, balance or clutch
| (although the latter might end up having the opposite effect).
|
| It's more uplifting to me to think of a "status game" this way.
| It's a bit of a competition but we're also the judges. Status
| doesn't just manifest, it has to be granted by someone who is
| also playing the game.
| torginus wrote:
| The second one, but this is a false dichotomy. If you are
| smart, educated, wealthy, or have a prestigious job you have
| claim to high status, no matter how humble or boastful you are
| about it. If you don't, you are faking it until (and if) you
| make it.
|
| True status doesn't rely on how much you flaunt it.
|
| This is the problem with the dreaded humblebrag - it's usually
| when people try to combine the two - complain about their
| expensive vacations, how much their dream job sucks etc. - they
| try to appear down to earth while at the same time rubbing in
| others' faces how much better they are.
| mherdeg wrote:
| I always wonder why folks with 9-figure net worth (or high 8)
| keep doing any job at all.
|
| People do not get very many quality-adjusted life years -- why
| would you spend 8+ hours per day doing CEO work when you could
| spend that time with family and friends?
| patches11 wrote:
| The article offers some potential explanations. As they achieve
| more status their peer group changes and they desire more
| status relative to their new group. They are looking for that
| huge exit or massive success.
|
| Alternatively you just don't see the people who retire and
| spend time with family and friends. They don't post here, they
| don't have blogs, they don't have articles posted about them.
| They are just living life.
| gigaflop wrote:
| > the people who retire and spend time with family and
| friends
|
| That's the ideal way to go, imo. I'm trying to slowly figure
| out what I need to live that kind of life, so that I can
| become some sort of cyberpunk mountain man when I reach
| financial independence. Identify what makes me happy, what I
| need for those happiness-generating activities, etc, and make
| sure that I'm set up to enjoy myself.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Work can be really enjoyable if you have more power to control
| how your time is spent. No one has complete control of how
| their time is spent, but that is true of life. If you aren't
| working you are still going to need to structure your time
| around activities like hobbies. At this point in my life work
| is one of my favorite hobbies.
| csa wrote:
| > why would you spend 8+ hours per day doing CEO work when you
| could spend that time with family and friends?
|
| Your family and friends are usually busy working.
|
| The only exception is if you roll with other wealthy (early)
| retirees. If you have ever spent time around these folks, you
| might see why it's not necessarily that compelling.
|
| I would humbly suggest that it's easier to meet and hang out
| with interesting people under the guise of owning or working in
| some sort of business. If you actually like that business (many
| people do), then it's a double win.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| I hear this often. How about why do people in countries with
| good social welfare bother to work at all? Just sit in your
| free house eating your free food until you die of old age.
| Easiest life ever! Obviously, the answer is that people get
| satisfaction from working beyond simply what they can spend the
| money on.
| csdvrx wrote:
| What if they prefer work to family and friends?
|
| A lot of people seem to prefer contributing to wikipedia or
| writing free software to partying, so it doesn't seem far
| fetched.
| petercooper wrote:
| I used to wonder that too. Having got to know a handful of
| people who've become very wealthy through their own efforts,
| though, I suspect being proactive is enjoyable for them
| ("thrill of the chase" and all that) in a way that undirected
| leisure is not. Some business people seem to be as compelled to
| strike deals or build companies in a similar way to how
| prolific authors or artists feels compelled to engage in their
| art.
| slivanes wrote:
| I'm guessing because not many family and friends would have the
| same net-worth to have the spare time time to hang out all day.
| I think of Notch as an example, I'm pretty sure he got quite
| lonely once he got paid out for Minecraft.
| brimble wrote:
| They probably enjoy it. Being a CEO or whatever doesn't look
| like sitting in a cubicle all damn day. Even the latter's much
| better if you know you have the money to quit whenever you feel
| like it. That alone makes a big difference, but they also have
| a lot more say in how they spend their time, and do completely
| different stuff.
|
| Making the big calls, having people who'll go do all kinds of
| stuff when you ask them to, meeting and hanging out with other
| important people, et c., probably feels awesome, and if you've
| got enough money socked away to never _need_ to work again, all
| the "risk" is as real as playing poker with pennies.
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| I was going to say this. It's fun when you are that high up.
| brimble wrote:
| It's also the case that someone with quite a bit of money
| doesn't have as much _non-work work_ to do. If you can
| afford to pay someone to do: all shopping (that you don 't
| enjoy doing), all cooking (ditto), all cleaning (doing the
| laundry including putting it away, doing the dishes,
| cleaning your house, cleaning your car[s]), to drive you
| around so that time's not lost, et c., that recovers a
| _ton_ of time. You can put quite a bit of that back into
| your job and _still_ come out ahead in leisure and family
| time, compared with a worker bee who still has to do all
| that shit themselves, outside work hours.
| gigaflop wrote:
| Even with work-from-home, I can see how more money ==
| more better in life.
|
| My dream home would need space for a home gym, workshop,
| and small office. Having a home, a home big enough for
| all of that, and then getting _all of that_ would not be
| cheap, but it would mean dead-simple access to things I
| need and things that make me happy and fulfilled, which
| would mean more time spent fulfilling myself.
| yojo wrote:
| I've always figured it was some combination of selection and
| survivorship bias.
|
| Selection because only workaholics or super-strivers generally
| make it to that level.
|
| Survivorship because the only ones you see working are by
| definition the ones that didn't quit. It is possible that many
| people who made that kind of money have quit and are just being
| quiet about it.
| scandox wrote:
| > I know some of you will say "Just ignore the status game
| altogether," but this is easier said than done. Like many other
| animals, we are biologically wired to respond to status.
| Ignorance is not the way out.
|
| It's not ignorance to overcome our biology. It is possible to
| control our desire for status and to live better lives and be
| happier as a result.
|
| Also different cultures are much more competitive about status:
| America is pretty extreme in this respect.
| pram wrote:
| It's a false dichotomy. There is a lot of space between 'clout
| whore' and 'rugged contrarian' and you don't have to commit
| your life to either. People who aren't trying to dominate in
| some status jockeying game aren't ignorant.
| elvis10ten wrote:
| I always find that people who claim that they or a geography
| have fewer/no status sports are only referring to the "popular"
| games. There is always an alternative game.
|
| People in Europe claim it. I have lived in Africa, Europe, US
| and the Middle East. The only difference I saw is the type of
| games people generally engage in.
|
| Geeks claim it, because they don't engage in the typical meat
| world status game. But again, we just usually play a different
| game.
|
| ...
| smitty1e wrote:
| Status is a temporal, worldly thing.
|
| Among the better ways to "win" this game is to seek status in
| the metaphysical. In a way, this is "winning" through "not
| playing".
|
| By some measures, I'm doing OK at it, if money is the scoring
| basis.
|
| OTOH, I've lived with the same house/car/wardrobe for a couple
| of decades.
|
| Do these oligarchs/celebrities _really_ have more joy than I?
|
| Maybe.
| quinnjh wrote:
| Is this the same logic as religiously shunning wealth for
| returns in the afterlife/spiritual realm? Maybe this is how
| you counter the maybe?
| detcader wrote:
| I have come to read any statement like "we are biologically
| wired to X" as a declaration of nihilism and misanthropy. Wired
| is what a light bulb is to a switch. Individual humans are
| complex, beautiful and capable of overcoming pretty much
| anything, including biological tendencies.
| qwertygnu wrote:
| > Wired is what a light bulb is to a switch.
|
| lol this is a good one. might have to steal it ;)
| insickness wrote:
| > It is possible to control our desire for status
|
| This is a narrow view of status. In many ways, any type of
| validation you get from working with others can be considered
| status. Most animals achieve status through physical
| aggression, while humans (and chimps) achieve status through
| cooperation and contributing to the group. Our minds are wired
| to get pleasure from working with others and being validated
| and appreciated for our work. That is part of status. If you
| enjoy doing the work you do and it makes you happy, that's
| because your brain is wired for status. Nothing wrong with it.
| There are of course negative sides of status like conspicuous
| consumption, social media addiction, etc. But just because you
| learn to avoid the pitfalls of status doesn't mean you aren't
| playing the game.
| Flankk wrote:
| You should do what makes you feel fulfilled in life. If that
| thing is status, I question your motivation. People like that are
| conceited.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| I think it's rarely status on its own, but people keep seeming
| to turn activities into status competitions. Even something
| humble like a retired man doing woodturning wants to make a
| more beautiful piece that people appreciate.
| alar44 wrote:
| Feeling fulfilled doesn't pay the bills, unfortunately.
| lordnacho wrote:
| The thing I do is I keep many social circles. Family groups,
| friends from different language groups, work groups, educational
| groups, interest groups, kids' friends' parents, and so on.
|
| That way there's really no hierarchy, it's like being a
| contractor at a business or an acquaintance at a party. People
| will still find you interesting but not threatening. Weirdly they
| also find you familiar despite you not being there all the time.
| I guess it's decreasing marginal returns.
|
| If you have some time to waste, look at one of those Real
| Housewives of X shows. They love having rivalries, but they're
| only fighting each other because it's such a closed group.
|
| Having lots of groups also lets you take off some of the
| intensity of your relationships. You don't have a sole provider
| of entertainment or warmth or intellectual stimulation, so you
| don't have to do everything their way. You can take a break from
| any particular person. And you get a lot of invitations.
|
| I'm even a bit suspicious of people who seem to have exactly one
| group of friends that they're always with and have always been
| in. Often I find there's some sort of blockage there in their
| maturation, making it hard for them to communicate.
| jkaptur wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of the Real Housewives of X for two reasons -
| first, like you say, they're fantastic petri dishes of
| relationships and status games.
|
| But even beyond intellectual curiosity, they also give you a
| useful topic of conversation when you take your advice and
| socialize beyond the Hacker News / Silicon Valley bubble.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Interestingly, I kind of do the opposite. I have one tiny
| social circle, basically my immediate family (wife and two
| kids). I work to make money, then spend that money on my family
| and my hobbies, which are all solo endeavors. I don't socialize
| outside of that, really. I play video games once a week with my
| high school friends online.
|
| My hobbies aren't involved in my status because I don't really
| talk to anyone about them. I build things for myself, I create
| things that I never show anyone, just because I enjoy doing it.
| I play with my kids, and talk with my wife. Don't really have a
| desire to do much else.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| I would advise against looking for anything real on Real
| Housewives of X
| [deleted]
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Honestly I wish I had paid a bit more attention to status in my
| life.
|
| Our culture tells you don't need to follow the crowd or play the
| game and you can march to the beat of your own drum.
|
| But honestly, that's overrated.
| fullshark wrote:
| Everyone realizes their world view as an adolescent was
| incomplete as they get older, doesn't matter if it's "status
| doesn't matter personal/relationship happiness is all that
| matters" or "accruing status is crucial for
| personal/relationship success and therefore happiness" or
| whatever. They are all overly simplified.
| balaji1 wrote:
| What do you wish you had more of in terms of status? Or where
| you wish you had followed the crowd?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Just wish I'd played the game more. Focused on grades,
| internships, prestigious companies.
|
| Don't get me wrong, this isn't a sob story. I'm just very
| career & success focused in my 30s, and was too school for
| cool up until my mid 20s.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Not my personal experience, but that of some people I have
| known:
|
| Accruing status typically also means accruing wealth and / or
| connections. At any point in time, you have options. You
| might have a legacy of influence you have spread.
|
| Marching to your own drum, deviating from society's
| expectations might leave you with a legacy of "he went to
| various places, looked at the things there, and made short
| term friends along the way" can, at a certain point in your
| life, feel quite unfulfilling. You end up having passed up
| the opportunities to put away for the future, or failed to
| establish a longer term network.
|
| At the end of the day, there are both extremes, and
| everything in-between, and then some more. Every choice comes
| with trade-offs.
| awgm wrote:
| Same with going along with the crowd
| jakub_g wrote:
| The story about monkeys shifted all the time between groups, and
| the status-seeking ones being most stressed, made me think about
| my experience changing teams/jobs.
|
| I'm generally not a status seeking person, I don't care about
| promotions etc. as long as job/team/pay is good. I consider
| myself ok programmer but not top one.
|
| When I join a new team, I don't want status per se, but I want
| people to know that I _don 't suck_. Which is in fact status
| seeking. Typically first year in a new team is kinda exhausting
| each time due to ramping up a lot of new knowledge and trying to
| prove my value. (That's why I try to only change ~every 3 years;
| to have enough breathing room, but when I get tired of a project,
| I need to change).
| skmurphy wrote:
| this reminded me of the "This is Water" commencement speech given
| by David Foster Wallace to the 2005 graduating class at Kenyon
| College. Key graf:
|
| "In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no
| such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping.
| Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.
| And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or
| spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it J.C. or Allah, be it
| Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or
| some infrangible set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much
| anything else you worship will eat you alive."
|
| Full talk available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-
| ydFMI http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178211966454607.html
| https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/
| ambicapter wrote:
| > instability is hell for high status individuals
|
| I feel like this explains a lot about how power structures fight
| so hard to stay in power--they're biologically wired to suffer
| more when they lose out than those at the bottom.
|
| This is both something "everyone knows" and refreshing to finally
| see put in print.
| insickness wrote:
| Beyond that, the gratification from accomplishing something is
| short-lived. If your last book sold a million copies and your
| new book only sells 500k, you may feel like a failure even
| though 500k is a lot of books. In some ways, success only adds
| to the pressure to keep succeeding. This isn't to say you
| shouldn't try to succeed, but it certainly explains why so many
| famous or successful people deal with problems like depression
| and drug addiction.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-01 23:00 UTC)