
Status, Seduction, and Annihilation - wallflower
http://www.jonathanfields.com/status-seduction-and-annihilation/
======
xixi77
He starts with postulating status and seduction as irrational, but at least
status signals are clearly not irrational by any measure, since other people
take them into account. Similarly, seduction (looks like he defines it as
choosing products based on criteria not directly related to primary
functionality) can be called irrational only under a very narrow view of
rationality, one that, for example, completely ignores aesthetics.

I am generally reluctant to call common human behaviors like that as
irrational, as it postulates that the writer's mental model is superior to the
one derived from millenia of evolution -- perhaps in some cases it can be
argued that the environments in response to which they evolved no longer
apply, but I really don't see that here.

~~~
chillacy
> the environments in response to which they evolved no longer apply

People care greatly what strangers think of them, even if those strangers have
no impact on their life. Public speaking tends to be a struggle for me, but
it's a struggle even if it's in front of people who don't matter. Recently on
one of my travels I thought I would go practice since I figured there would be
such a small chance of running into any of these people again, and failure
wouldn't matter. But that didn't make it feel any easier.. my amygdala doesn't
know that distinction. That's definitely irrational. I understand the sound
evolutionary basis, but modern reality means I can fly away to another city
with another 10k strangers, why should it matter if I embarrass myself?

