
The Economics of Status (2006) - csense
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/10/economics-of-status.html
======
AndrewKemendo
The conclusion that there is no truly hierarchical measure of status, because
there are fractally distributed groups for which you could have status within,
is wrong on it's face.

As an example, nearly everyone on the planet knows who the US President and
Pope are and recognize them as the highest status (even if you don't like them
- don't ask me why this is). If one of those people walked into any of those
smaller groups, they would inherit the highest status immediately, without
having to do any of the in-group activities.

~~~
marchenko
Talented Actors and salespeople are often able to capture what they call
"local star power" : situational periods of top status based on charisma or
relevant skill. But local status is usually fleeting compared to global
status, which is generally determined by some combination of power and
attractiveness to potential mates. It doesn't matter if you crown yourself
King of the Middle Kingdom if you have no desirable courtiers orbiting your
throne. So there are many different nested and intertwined status hierarchies
(athletic, scientific, creative, etc), but not nearly enough to accommodate
most status-seekers. Intentional communities - often religious - are one of
the few examples that subvert external status criteria successfully over
significant periods.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Well put. The author of the piece seems to errantly assume that because there
are local maxima, it eliminates the idea of a global maximum.

Unfortunately this concept holds neither in mathematics, nor within the
psyche.

------
joe_the_user
But there are lots of ways that relative status really matters in a not-just-
subjective way.

If a number of people are competing with you, your relative status within the
group is an important factor for determining winning conditions.

If ten people are competing for one job, none of them have any reason to care
about an effect which, say, increase the education-level of all of them. But
each might be willing to take a class if it increased their chance of getting
the relative to the other.

~~~
lumberjack
Relative status is what matters. The author, being an extreme libertarian, is
uncomfortable with that idea, because he doesn't want to admit that relative
wealth and wealth inequality, matter.

~~~
paulpauper
Going though the comments, it seems like few agree with the the article, yet
it has been up-voted to the front page. I guess the people who are voting are
different from those who are commenting. People who like the article are less
inclined to comment, but rather vote.

~~~
icebraining
One might upvote for different reasons rather than agreement. I've upvoted
submissions because I disagreed but still found an interesting argument, or
because it generated a good discussion in the comments.

------
tabeth
Status seeking, being inherently zero-sum, is a pursuit that will only leave
you unfulfilled in the end. In fact, I think the very fabric of human
existence is predicated on this inequality that status emphasizes.

As for myself, I try to fight against it by refusing to share information
that's not contextually relevant. It kind of sucks sometimes, but I think it's
the "status-free" way to do something. Living in MA, I always manage to be
amazed as some Ivy-League graduates slip the fact that they attended an Ivy
League school into a conversation that has nothing to do with their education
or pedigree.

~~~
cortesoft
Did you read the article? The whole point was that status is NOT inherently
zero sum, since everyone uses different criteria to determine their own
status.

~~~
tabeth
Yup. I disagree with it, obviously. I don't think the author gives sufficient
evidence to prove that it's not zero sum. Can everyone be of high status? The
answer is obviously no. Like I mentioned before, the very idea of status to
begin with is relative. If status is _not_ zero sum, that means that everyone
can be of "high status". I believe such a thing is nonsensical, and so,
impossible.

~~~
peteretep
The argument he makes, that you have apparently missed, is that which values
constitute status are different for different people.

I think you're low status because you can't crush 300kg deadlifts like me, you
think I'm low status because I don't appreciate classic music like you.

Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the
things they're good at.

~~~
curun1r
The problem with that argument is that status isn't determined by the person
seeking it, it's determined by those deciding whether to mate with the status
seeker. That's where our hardwired impulses toward status seeking derive
from...our need to perpetuate the species.

That doesn't mean that it's necessarily zero sum, but it means we're not
completely in control of framing it the way that you and the article are
suggesting. But you are right that there are different dimensions of status
because different people value different characteristics. Some people are
attracted to strong men that can lift 300 pounds and others prefer the
refinement of a knowledge of classical music. But if you choose to define your
status to far from the societal norms, you won't find others that agree with
that framing and you'll be isolated out of the gene pool.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification and we use status for more than just
mate selection, but our dimensions for status seeking are still based on how
we want to attract sexual partners.

~~~
peteretep

        > The problem with that argument
    

You haven't actually outlined any problems with that argument, you've simply
stated that status in the eye of the beholder isn't perfectly aligned with
that of the status holder.

~~~
curun1r
You said:

> Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the
> things they're good at.

I'm arguing that you don't get to define status for yourself, so there are
limits to how you can distinguish yourself and still claim status. You have to
be graded on a recognized dimension of status. That makes it virtually
impossible for everyone to be high status.

Also, certain dimensions of status are far more universal than others. I don't
care how much you can bench press, you're going to be almost universally seen
as lower status than a handsome, movie-star actor. Those dimensions of status
are so widespread that you really can't define your way past them.

And it works in reverse too...certain dimensions are almost universally
unrecognized. For example, I can hold my breath for just over 8 minutes. That
puts me in elite company and people are almost always impressed by it. A
couple of decades ago, going that long without breathing would have met the
medical definition of death despite my never having lost consciousness. But I
can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how much I'd
like it to.

~~~
crdb
> But I can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how
> much I'd like it to.

You could learn to free dive in a couple of weeks and use your capacity for
breath holding to get yourself on most countries' national team (doubt that
would cut it for the US team, but you could win some regional meets). Being a
national athlete confers decent status, more so if you pick up a medal.

From a quick Google for an example, the current NZ and 4th global women's
record for women is 7 minutes 45 in static apnea [1], and she easily beat the
men's champion, so 8 minutes would presumably be very good. I'm basing the
mapping from "apnea capability" to "free diving capability" off what a free
diving friend told me.

(I don't disagree with the rest of your point.)

[1]
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&obje...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11738805)

~~~
curun1r
Heh...freediving is the context in which one learns to hold his breath for
that long :) Unfortunately, my static times don't translate as well into
dynamic times. I'm basically limited to 2-3 minutes underwater when I'm
moving. My PB for depth is around 50m, which is nowhere near elite.

I basically came to freediving too late in life to ever be world class in any
of the disciplines. The funny thing is that, when it comes to status, what
little my freediving training has gained me has come from the associated
weight loss.

------
Animats
I used to know that guy when he _was_ King of the Middle Kingdom in the
Society for Creative Anachronism. He was an extreme libertarian long before it
was fashionable. He wrote "The Machinery of Freedom" in 1971. It's an extreme
expression of "markets can do anything".

------
mempko
Status is closely related to authority and power. I'm not going to pretend I'm
the top of a ladder and have power. Power is a real objective thing and it is
a zero sum game. We must not let people get so powerful, no matter how "nice"
they are. That's the real argument for equality, but more importantly equity.

------
rland
Ah, but the problem with discussions of status is that "not chasing status" is
a status in and of itself. It's status all the way down!!

You will never get rid of it.

~~~
mpweiher
"You cannot not communicate" \-- Paul Watzlawick[1]

Incidentally, most of his writing is pretty amazing. "How Real is Real?", for
example.

One of my favorite example is the experiment where two people are (
_ostensibly_ , as in all psychology experiments) asked to figure out how to
spot disease patterns in certainly images of blood cells.

The experimental setup is that subjects A and B each have a screen a button to
indicate whether the picture shows a diseased or healthy cell and a light
showing them whether they were right.

The nasty bit is that whereas A's light is hooked up to his answers, B's light
is not. It is also hooked up to A's and they aren't shown the same pictures.
So A gets proper feedback whereas B gets essentially random feedback.

Since the task is not that hard, the As quickly figure out the simple rule,
whereas the Bs concoct ever more elaborate theories.

The _really_ nasty bit is that they then bring A and B together to discuss and
present their findings. And it turns out that the Bs almost without fail
convince the As that they are wrong, because how could such a ridiculously
simple answer be correct, whereas the As are convinced by the sophisticated
answers the Bs have come up with.

Explains so much.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick)

------
popra
Genuine question: I've never understood the non zero sum game idea in the
context of economic inequality. If I win more than you lose, overall it's a
non zero sum game, as in, our combined gaines are greater than before (the pie
is larger), but you still lose(you get a smaller piece). Would someone be
interested in highlighting some counter arguments to this?

~~~
omalleyt
The idea of non-zero-sum games is that a regulator interested in public
welfare would still let the two people you described play that "game," and
then would be able to tax and redistribute in such a way that both "players"
are still better off for having played.

With zero-sum games the habitual loser would eventually wise up and wish to
stop playing

~~~
popra
Not sure I understand your point, in a zero-sum game the third party could
still do some redistribution to keep the habitual loser "in the game"

Update: scratch the above, you're right. But in my experience the ones arguing
that we're in a non zero-sum game also argue against redistribution.

------
paulsutter
Even better, de-emphasize status. Status concerns are practically embedded in
the "elite" professions (finance, law, consulting), but in technology people
spend a lot less time worrying about that. And that's healthy.

~~~
chillacy
Keith Johnstone (pioneered improv theater) makes a pretty convincing argument
in his book Impro that status is the most important thing to humans (and that
much of our interactions involve status). It's the invisible fabric of our
life in society that we aren't supposed to talk about.

Also, plenty of psychological research has shown that status is usually valued
more than money in one's job, where status encompasses things like "my boss
tells me I'm doing a good job" (which means more coming from your boss or the
VP than the intern) or "my team appreciates the work I do".

------
yodon
I'm sorry to call you out on this, but when I click on the link for your
username, I see lots of info you've listed to communicate your status as a
successful and accomplished member of the tech community. Presumably that info
is there because you think it is relevant and of interest to the technology
people here on HN.

Oh, and yes, if you or someone else clicks on both our links you'll see that
you have far more karma here than I do, suggesting that perhaps your opinion
on these matters should be valued over mine, and/or that you can both dish out
and weather down-votes more than I can, both because of your higher status
here.

[edit: slight grammar tweak for clarity]

~~~
paulsutter
Ok then, I just deleted my bio, if that helps.

As for HN points, that just indicates procrastination (spending too much time
on HN).

~~~
cortesoft
Well, now you are trying to increase your status as someone who doesn't care
about status. The fact that you felt it worthwhile to delete your bio, just to
prove to some random internet stranger that you don't care about status,
clearly shows that you care.

It is ok to care about how others perceive you. We are social creatures, and
we care about what others think. That isn't a bad thing.

~~~
paulsutter
I assure you I'm a nerd with no social standing whatsoever, and I'm almost
flattered to be considered otherwise here in this thread.

And yes we're social creatures, and we all want to be understood and
appreciated. But that's quite a different thing from pursuing social status.

~~~
cortesoft
I don't think it IS different.... being 'understood and appreciated' is
exactly what social status is.

~~~
paulsutter
No, social status is a zero sum /ranking/ of individuals and inherently
competitive.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status)

------
abvdasker
Not knowing who the author was, I read this thinking it must've been written
by a teenager taking his first stabs at intellectual discussion of
socioeconomics. Turns out he's Trump's ambassador to Israel. I can't decide
which is less credible.

 _We all value status._

It's easy to miss how bad this generalization is since this piece is entirely
generalization. It reveals the assumption underpinning Friedman's argument —
that status is important to everyone. He seems to think that those who don't
value traditional signifiers of status must find other ways to scratch that
itch.

I understand this is a short blog piece but you can't credibly talk about
status in a societal sense without also acknowledging the ways in which each
society tends to limit the rights of those at the very bottom of its status
hierarchy. Status is not just self-perception, it has a very tangible,
external impact on someone's well-being in a society.

The biggest problem with this piece is that it doesn't acknowledge the very
real possibility that status simply matters less to some people than others.
The best people I know are the ones who devote the least amount of energy to
comparing themselves to everyone around them. Personally I believe that
striving for a level of detachment from competitive self-evaluation is a lot
more important than achieving any of the forms of status Friedman seems to
care about.

Maybe instead of moving towards Friedman's capitalist utopia where everyone
can be high-status we should instead strive for a place where status just
matters less to everyone.

~~~
barry-cotter
> Turns out he's Trump's ambassador to Israel.

Author of the linked blog.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman)

David Director Friedman (born February 12, 1945) is an American economist,
physicist, legal scholar, and libertarian theorist. He is known for his
textbook writings on microeconomics and the libertarian theory of anarcho-
capitalism, which is the subject of his most popular book, The Machinery of
Freedom.[2] Besides The Machinery of Freedom, he has authored several other
books and articles, including Price Theory: An Intermediate Text (1986), Law's
Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters (2000), Hidden
Order: The Economics of Everyday Life (1996), and Future Imperfect (2008).[3]

Trump's ambassador to Israel

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Friedman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Friedman)

David Melech Friedman is an American bankruptcy lawyer.

