
Who wants to play the status game? - bradj
https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/who-wants-to-play-the-status-game-agnes-callard/
======
willemlabu
I once attended a talk by a man who was head of a creative marketing agency.
He also had a side gig of being a presentation consultant. I forget his name
and agency, but I don't think I could forget what he said.

He would lead his company's pitches to new clients, and would turn up to the
presentation wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and flip flops; tattoos all over his
arms and neck, and thereby set the expectations of the room quite low.

He would then continue brazenly with his presentation – charming, intelligent,
and confident – and by the end of the pitch would hopefully have won the
prospective clients with this wit.

His logic was that everyone plays the status game, but to be remembered you
need to change people's perception of your status drastically. Setting
expectations low, and then making them feel foolish for misjudging you.

In his words: it had varied success.

~~~
kristianc
> Setting expectations low, and then making them feel foolish for misjudging
> you.

It's a risky game. People tend to make their first impressions within seconds,
and then spend the rest of the time looking for evidence to validate that
assumption.

~~~
asdfman123
Not really. As a shy person, I've been playing it my whole life. For some
reason, people meet me and assume... I dunno, that I'm just someone who can be
swept aside. I let them believe that.

But I'm a lot more capable than people give me credit for being, and I'll be
honest, a part of me enjoys it when that realization starts to set in.

It's not really a machiavellian ploy on my part to optimize some kind of
social outcome, just a pattern I've settled into. It's fine for most aspects
of my life. Good for poker games with strangers. Bad for first dates and
FAANG-style job interviews, where I excessively downplay my abilities.

However, I think generally in life you shouldn't try to "be" anything except
healthier and kinder. You were given a role in life, and it is up to you to
play it to your best ability. I'm paraphrasing Kurt Vonnegut, I think, when I
say be careful who you pretend to be -- because that might be the person you
become.

Consciously playing social games is foolish. What you really want in life is
inside of you. Strive to be better, not to find artificial ways to dominate
others.

~~~
b0rsuk
You may be interested in this article then:
[http://www.thedistilledman.com/how-introverted-men-
attract-w...](http://www.thedistilledman.com/how-introverted-men-attract-
women/) (How an introverted man can attract women naturally). I found it
interesting but haven't tried it in practice yet. The article argues 99% of
dating advice on the net is written for extroverts and people who want to be
like extroverts.

~~~
meken
Thanks for sharing. If you enjoyed this, you will probably also enjoy Models
by Mark Manson. I’m only 1/3 of the way through, but the topic of focusing on
your strengths rather than changing yourself is a theme throughout the book.

------
afpx
Another "more advanced game" is the collaboration game. In this game, the
players determine their common ground. The players evaluate each other and
think, "Hey this person seems to be good at X and knows a lot about Y. I know
a lot about Z. Maybe we can join forces." They then identify common goals that
they can work on together.

I don't know about most people, but I'm definitely more interested in playing
the collaboration game. And, I tend to overlook people who aren't into it.

Also, it's unfortunate if many people are influenced by Aristotle and "see
human political organization as fundamentally hierarchical."
Anthropologically, Humans tend to follow those whom they respect, not those
they are told to follow.

~~~
chrisweekly
Great points!

Tangent: I wish more games were explicitly collaborative. Some competitive
games can easily be adjusted, others not so much. Games like "Forbidden
Island" represent, for many, a completely foreign paradigm where everyone's in
it together. Shame that's not more common.

~~~
eindiran
There is a fairly large number of collaborative board games:

[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2023/cooperative...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2023/cooperative-
game)

Some interesting ones:

* Gloomhaven

* Spirit Island

* Pandemic (or any of the other games in the series)

* Codenames Duet

* Arkham Horror (or any of the other games in the series)

* Mysterium

~~~
Evgeniuz
Kind of a smaller ones, but "Hanabi" and "Grizzled" are also nice. The good
thing in these two games is they're not feeling like group solitaire (and I
love a good game of Spirit Island, but point stands), you actually have to
cooperate with another people, you can't win them by yourself.

~~~
funnybeam
And then there is Diplomacy, where you have to cooperate with everyone to get
anywhere - right until you stab them in the back

------
ath0
The trade in status - what this article calls “the importance game” and “the
leveling game” - are a core part of what makes conversation hard. If you want
to learn more - or are having trouble getting the feel for examples of why
this is so important in practice and how to use it - a book recommendation:

A previous gig gave us Keith Johnstone’s book for theater actors and writers
_Impro_ as part of our onboarding. Chapter 2, “Status”, is entirely on this
concept, and how status exchanges are a key part of what makes scenes
interesting and relatable for viewers. At the time it felt like an odd choice
for an engineering role, but after reading the detailed examples of status
exchanges and how they work, they became impossible to unsee.

And that was great, because I gotta tell you, HN: applying this skill has made
me a much more effective technical leader.

Wishing for status exchanges not to happen isn’t helpful - they’re happening
whether you see and intend them or not, so learning how to spot and use (or
avoid them) effectively made it, maybe paradoxically, much easier to have
difficult, important, multi-layered conversations with people - other
engineers, other departments, customers - about hard problems and get them to
a good resolution.

As the industry does some soul-searching about the way power is perceived and
used differently by different groups, understanding this topic should be seen
as core to leveling up.

------
kerkeslager
> It is much easier to mock others for engaging in the Importance Game and the
> Leveling Game than to acknowledge one is doing it.

And it's critical to realize: mocking others for engaging in the Importance
Game and the Leveling Game is just a way of engaging in the Importance Game.

This is an even stranger game than Nuclear War: it sometimes seems that the
only winning move is not to play, but not to play isn't really an option.

~~~
toasterlovin
> And it's critical to realize: mocking others for engaging in the Importance
> Game and the Leveling Game is just a way of engaging in the Importance Game.

I grew up in Los Angeles and now live in Portland, OR. People in LA play the
status game rather brazenly and are roundly mocked for it. But the exact same
game is played by everyone doing the mocking here in Portland. Except, instead
of buying luxury automobiles and extremely expensive clothes, as people in LA
do, people here signal status using markers of enlightenment and moral purity
such as diet, meditation, political positions, etc.

I’m conflicted. In some ways, I appreciate the honesty of the LA approach. But
I also appreciate the more subtle nature of the Portland approach.

~~~
kerkeslager
Honesty might seem like an escape from the Importance and Leveling Games: you
say the truth, so you're not basing what you say on an attempt to get status,
so you've exited the game, right?

Well, that doesn't quite work out in practice: First, you can only be as
honest with others as you are with yourself, and being honest with yourself is
hard: you just end up playing the games unintentionally. Second, honesty is
never complete by the simple nature that you don't have time to say
everything, so the things about yourself that you choose to be honest about
create a picture that has implications for the Importance and Leveling Games.
Third, lying isn't the only way to change what you say: you can change what
you say about yourself by changing yourself. If you do different things, you
can say different things about yourself without lying, and your actions can be
motivated by the Importance/Leveling Games. And as a sub-point of that: being
honest is a choice of actions that's usually geared toward winning the
Importance Game.

~~~
toasterlovin
Part of my conflict is that I appreciate the restraint and subtlety of the
Portland approach, but I also appreciate the honesty of the LA approach. The
compromise I've come to is to acknowledge that I strive to be part of the
elite class, but promise myself that I won't be a jerk in pursuit of my
ambitions.

~~~
kerkeslager
I suspect that the honesty/subtlety of the approaches really only is
differentiable at the low levels which most people are able to master. If you
can't do that you can't play, of course, but being able to do that doesn't
really differentiate you.

At the higher levels, I suspect LA involves just as much dishonesty as
Portland, and as much subtlety to make those lies work in an environment where
brazen-ness is the norm.

------
noelwelsh
This has given me food for thought. My kids go to school in an area that has a
mix of incomes. My average day might involve working from home, or it might
involving traveling internationally to visit $PROMINENT_BRAND_NAME to deliver
consulting. When I talk to the other parents I want to reveal some aspects of
my life so we have something to talk about. However I can easily come across
as boasting (and, to some extent, I guess I am) if I name drop trips and
clients. The Leveling Game is similarly tricky. Though I would happily
criticize the current government, in my area the majority voted for them
(sigh.) Also, grumbling isn't really my jam. I don't want to base my
relationships on it.

~~~
fma
Ask them about their kids and just let them do the talking. A natural
conversation usually flows from there.

~~~
noelwelsh
I'm agreed that talking about kids is a good way to get conversations started
with strangers (or pets, if not kids). In this case we're relatively new to
the area but I know most people's backgrounds now. It's more a case of someone
initiating conversation with a casual "what have you been up to?" to which I
can respond, say, "Oh, just got back from a week at $MEGACORP", which might
taken as a status play but at least gives something to start a conversation
about, or a conversation killing "Oh, not much. Just the usual work stuff."

~~~
whatshisface
I don't think it's a status play to namedrop a "megacorp," because for all
they know you could be doing data entry. There's a spectrum of business
consulting advancedness. It would be boasting to say "I delivered a report
directly to the CEO," not to say "I did a one week contract for Walmart." The
look on your face when you say it (snide, "I'm better than you," resigned to a
life in airplane seats, pained from a life in airplane seats...) will convey
most of the message.

------
friendlybus
The article contradicts itself. It calls for an end to status games and at the
same time holds up the class system as an easy out for determine status
because the class takes care of it for you. That is still a status game.

The class system does not substitute individual status relations for an
institutional approach, it just ignores them.

I lived and worked in London for 5 years and used to an individualistic
perspective I found it very difficult when you spend years sticking your neck
out for people and doing the right thing is rewarded with institution
incompetence and staff that will let you down you for a broken system and
marginal personal gain.

The society becomes so stratified that any reasonable increase or decrease on
your hierarchical position means to completely change your social circle and
living circumstances.

Hearing a coworker show off by misnaming the area she lived in so she could
self correct multiple times demonstrating how close she lived to an area
slightly higher up the chain than she really lived is something I could do
without.

With individual status and addressing you know where you stand with people.
The class hierarchy leads to slavish wonderment in the presence of the higher
classes even if they spit in your face or verbally abuse you.

Please sir may I have some more? No oliver, not today.

~~~
hashkb
The article explores the issue but doesn't take a strong position. Your attack
on it isn't coherent. What point are you trying to make? Seems like you've got
a grudge against... society?

~~~
friendlybus
The article takes a strong position.

The article devalues finite status games based on victimhood or individual
merit. It goes on to suggest hierarchy as a direct counterpoint and goes on to
articulates the virtues of a class based system. It claims as it's final
conclusion left with the reader that there is a conflict between needing to
value someone's life in terms of worth at the bottom of society and at the
top. Something only a hierarchy can solve or would even attempt to order the
world that way.

A hierarchy can solve this because it is a unified system of receivership
centered on a common purpose. At every level it is the same purpose executed
better or worse, differing on the properties of the person involved. A
hierarchy supports the concept of a 'best', an 'elite' rather than merit and
hides all counter-veiling evidence under a shroud of embarrassment.

The UK has implemented a hierarchical class system. I am articulating what
happens when you live in a class system. A lot of things people don't talk
about. Some people want to live in the shade of a great tree, and I'm okay
with that. I don't.

------
yunusabd
I love how the author casually puts herself up there with Kant, Aristotle and
Nietzsche. I guess she's playing the importance game too :)

"And no philosopher — not Kant, not Aristotle, not Nietzsche, not I — has yet
figured out how to construct a moral theory that allows us to say both of
those things."

~~~
SQueeeeeL
Also like how they completely ignore Marx/philosophers who actually study
societial inequality, with those who studied logic.

Also the whole Ubermensch thing is basically a solution to this, by
essentially fixing the whole system with an ideal person.

~~~
mapcars
>fixing the whole system with an ideal person.

How can non-ideal persons define what an ideas person is? This is just a
mental game.

~~~
czbond
I don't see why non-ideal cannot define ideal, but within a small standard
deviation is possible.

~~~
mapcars
Because these non-ideal "definers" have their own limitations which they are
not aware of, otherwise they would fix themselves and already be ideal. These
limitations will inevitably get into the designing process and the result.

In other words you can not prepare for something you have no idea about.

------
asdfman123
I get the sense that the conflict the author describes is a problem in
American culture, because most of us want to believe in a classless society,
yet at the same time, class is everywhere.

I feel in many cultures it's far more explicit and tolerated. You know who
your "betters" are. In America, you'd never acknowledge that.

I'm not saying that a rigid social hierarchy would be better -- but our
approach to society is to try to downplay social hierarchies, while in some
sense they're inescapable.

~~~
rapnie
In Dutch society there is a saying "Act normal, then you are crazy enough".
Showing ones wealth and status is not done and seen as flashy and arrogant,
something to be ashamed of really.

Edit: Good examples of where this leads to is the Dutch prime minister Mark
Rutte visiting the King by bike [0] or cleaning up his own spilled coffee by
himself [1] while the cleaners are watching.

[0] [https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/dutch-pm-
form...](https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/dutch-pm-forms-new-
government-rides-his-bike-to-the-palace-to-tell-the-king-and-even-locks-it-
up-355466)

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/06...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/06/after-
mopping-up-spilled-coffee-dutch-leader-mark-rutte-becomes-a-symbol-of-
etiquette/)

~~~
CalRobert
Riding a bike is a way to show off the best cycling infrastructure in the
world, as well as your modern, wealthy, functional society where this is not a
security concern. It's a pretty big flex. I burn with envy, and look at
American transport infrastructure with disgust.

------
zxcmx
Thank goodness for status ambiguity.

It's possible to be rich, yet a terrific bore; a talented golfer who is a mean
drunk; a world class programmer who can't weld for beans; or a respected judge
who nonetheless commits a faux pas at a society event.

We can all be switching statuses all the time and (to an extent) we get to
choose which ones, if any, matter to us.

I think this makes life immensely more rich and tolerable than the self
promoters of this world would have us believe.

~~~
stared
It is closely related to the "scalar fallacy" (see
[http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar...](http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2011/01/scalar-
fallacy.html;) the quotation from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8132525)):

> The scalar fallacy is the false but pervasive assumption that real-world
> things (hotels, sandwiches, people, mutual funds, chemo drugs, whatever)
> have some single-dimension ordering of "goodness".

> When you project a multi-dimensional space down to one dimension, you are
> involving a lot of context and preferences in the act of projecting.

~~~
dmos62
Single dimension fallacy might be a good alternative name.

I'd add that often things don't have a single ordering of goodness at all.
Like a tomato sauce: some people like it thick, others watery, others chunky;
so it actually has at least 3 orderings.

~~~
jonathanstrange
Well, the general solution of economists is to assume that every person has
their own ordering. This doesn't work for Spectrum Arguments by Larry Temkin,
though. A typical argument goes like this: Suppose alternative A gives you an
extremely high level of well-being for a month. B brings a little bit less
well-being than A for two months. C a little bit less well-being for four
months, and so forth. In pairwise comparisons you judge that B is better than
A, C is better than B, and so on. Yet at some point, say, Z you will consider
A better than Z if you compare A to Z, but you will continue to consider Z
better than Y. Therefore, "better than" is not transitive.

People have written a lot of articles on how to solve these types of puzzles,
which can be formulated many different evaluative domains. They always involve
two or more criteria.

~~~
yboris
I've heard Temkin give talks attacking transitivity and I never buy it. Most
of his examples involve infinity which is problematic. In the example you
share, I think all it points out is that our ability to compare things
(psychologically) is broken: we may think A < B < C < ... X < Z in pairwise
comparisons, but something goes silly when we compare A and Z and think A > Z.
I strongly think this is a bias akin to scope insensitivity. By the time we
get to Z we're likely talking about HUNDREDS OF YEARS of experience, and we
just are not psychologically fit to make such a comparison.

So I don't think Temkin is right.

PS - Derek Parfit and the "repugnant conclusion" ... not so repugnant if you
think about it right ;)

~~~
yboris
Re: jonathanstrange's reply to my reply

Thanks for more comments. You're right you can re-scale things to be (A) 30
minutes VS 10 years (Z) ... at which point, why would anyone prefer A > Z ???

Part of the argument relies on this very vague definition of the eventual
state of things. Temkin talks about an experience "just above 'barely worth
living'" (Life-Z-1) ... and that is _so_ vague, and it means something _so_
different to different people. Given that people in concentration camps chose
to continue living rather than kill themselves right away might make someone
think "Life-Z-1" sucks, I would take 10 minutes of pleasure over that torture.
Meanwhile I'm thinking what is just above 'barely worth living' (Life-Z-2) is
just great -- the kind of basic enjoyment you have day to day without too much
humor or excitement.

Philosophy is hard - I don't mean to poo-poo Temkin, I just never could grasp
why transitivity was what he was attacking. As he says (something akin to)
"there are several balls we're juggling in the air, and we must drop at least
one to make it work" and he chooses to drop transitivity. And I don't see why
he chose that 'ball'.

~~~
jdmichal
I can certainly see a case. Let's make it about money.

A is a single payment of $10,000.

B is two monthly payments of $5250. Or, in other words, a 5% improvement over
A in total payments.

C is three monthly payments of $3675. Again, 5% better than B in sum.

I could completely see someone doing a pairwise comparison between A and B,
and picking B for the 5% increase, because the time difference is not that
important. Same again for B and C; it's only one more month for an extra 5%.

However, I could also see that same person comparing A and Z and deciding that
instantaneous vs a period of two years is not worth the wait.

~~~
humansvsrobots
If a person is wealthy and doesn't need to spend that amount during the entire
duration of Z, since they have other wealth to spend, they would likely choose
Z for the higher return over the same time period.

So only a relative poverty would encourage the person to choose A.

Assuming they have unlimited life span. If not and their lifespan is
uncertain, then the value of Z is reduced by the chance of not surviving long
enough to profit from it.

If they can invest A and get a higher return than waiting for Z, then A is a
more profitable choice.

------
cousin_it
Status sucks.

The greatest invention of civilization is trade, which makes status obsolete.
In a society that upholds property rights of everyone, even the lowest can get
ahead without being seen as superior or excellent. Just offer something that
other people want to have, and ask for a little money in return.

The result of that process - that a low-status-looking, fat, filthy, cowardly
trader ends up driving a BMW - is hated by the public, who would rather see a
proud warrior in that BMW, winning it through status instead of lowly trade.
But fuck that. I hope trade keeps ascending, and people who are disliked but
provide good things to others - cowardly traders, smelly nerds, the whole sad
group that I identify with - keep getting more good stuff in lieu of status
competition.

~~~
leftyted
> The greatest invention of civilization is trade, which makes status
> obsolete. In a society that upholds property rights of everyone, even low-
> status "omegas" can get ahead without ever being seen as superior or
> excellent. Just offer something that other people want to have, and ask for
> a little money in return.

"Trade" doesn't let you escape status. "Omegas" who get ahead by being smart
are competing for status and are "seen as superior or excellent".

Humans have built all this stuff because we have been able to invent arbitrary
status games. If our status games were only about some combination of physical
size and cunning, we'd still be living in a "state of nature".

~~~
cousin_it
Trade is the opposite of a zero-sum status game: it creates gains and shares
them among participants. (Gains from trade exist whenever Alice and Bob have
different rates of exchange between good X and good Y.) Success in trade
doesn't come from being better than others and making them less successful, it
comes from trading with others and making them more successful.

~~~
CraigJPerry
How do you reconcile corporate software sales with that world view?

Trade is entirely predicated upon status and status is only partially
predicated upon trade.

~~~
cousin_it
> _Trade is entirely predicated upon status_

I think that's way overstated. As an outsourcer in Moscow working for Western
companies, I got plenty of gains from trade, despite having lower status than
Western folks. And remember how China took over world trade while being so low
status that "made in China" was a joke?

~~~
CraigJPerry
Moscow has a relatively high status. Russia is nearer the top than it is to
the bottom of the 196.

To pick an aribtrary example WITHOUT casting aspertions because that’s not my
goal - a Somalian company producing the best product X would struggle severely
against a trashy X made in, again arbitrary choice, China.

~~~
cousin_it
Yes, competing on quality requires trust, which you call "status". If you
don't have that, you must spend some time competing on price first. That's how
China did it (and has now moved up to making iPhones) and how Somalia can do
it as well. See also: Indian software outsourcing used to be a total joke, but
it was cheap, and now look at the demographics of Google including the CEO.

~~~
CraigJPerry
Trust is different. I’m just talking about status which comes before trust can
even begin.

Price is not enough.

------
code4tee
Status only matters if the other party cares about it.

The ultimate status game is truly showing that you don’t care that the other
person is X, has done X, their dad/uncle is X, wants you to think X but rather
are dealing with the person in front of you right then and there and what they
are able to bring to the table at that time.

The reverse is incredibly powerful too. Those that have been most impressive
to me throughout life are when they seemed like a totally “normal” person and
then later I found out something about their “status” that others would have
gloated endlessly about.

~~~
saiya-jin
This mindset brings such a peace of mind. You can't impress me with anything
payable in money, empty statements, family credentials etc. Only your actions
define your relationship with me. If you mess it up, I will act with you
accordingly. If I will consider you a bad influence to my kid, you 2 will
simply not meet, even if you would be his grandparent.

To make things even easier, I apply this to absolutely everybody, friends,
family, colleagues, unknowns. For some reason, not many people are willing to
do so, and always have double 'meter' for ie close family. Maybe I am a bit
broken with this, but damn it makes life simple, honest and steady,
relationships are crystal clear. My opinions on persons don't change, unless
they change (which they don't because frankly nobody really does, at least not
enough to change overall attitude).

~~~
rglover
Much respect for this point of view.

I've recently adopted a similar stance on relationships and while it's irked
some folks, it's made life incredibly peaceful. No drama, no manipulation,
just spending time with folks who are great company and discarding the rest.

------
leelin
My undergrad was a super nerdy school grinding largely solo in the CS lab.
Later I did an MBA program to take me completely out of my comfort zone.

I gravitated to those who were chill, and perplexed anyone who tried to play
the Status Game by losing on purpose. If it was the chess equivalent, I fall
into Fool's Mate on move 2.

Unfortunately, there ARE times when it helps to be able to quickly convey to
new acquaintances that you are legitimate and worthwhile for further
collaboration. But most of the time, best to turn it off.

~~~
justzisguyuknow
From the article:

> It is much easier to mock others for engaging in the Importance Game and the
> Leveling Game than to acknowledge one is doing it.

If you think that playing 'to lose' is somehow opting out then you're fooling
yourself. The point us that we are always playing.

~~~
celticmusic
nah, people like us just value different things.

I can tell you I grew up extremely poor, to the point of homelessness, and if
you think for a second I give a shit what bob thinks of me, you're wrong.
Those sorts of experiences give you a different perspective. It's one of the
major reasons why I've situated my life in such a way that these same people's
disapproval isn't going to affect me. In fact, I had a company inadvertently
learn that lesson late last year, and it hurt them way more than it hurt me.
They made the mistake of evaluating my worth by how I play that game.

~~~
luckyscs
We all value different things, but we all have the same core needs that make
us value security. Food, water, shelter. In my head right now I cant think of
one status signifier that doesn't also signify security. Gold toilets
included.

~~~
celticmusic
absolutely not. You do not need to display security to have it, that's a large
part of what I meant when I said people like us value different things.

[https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-
Amer...](https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Surprising-
Americas/dp/1589795474)

~~~
luckyscs
Well none of us have eternal security. Money is just a buffer. Network is a
part of it. Health is apart of it. Education is a part of it. Network and
health and education are hide things to hide when living your life, but they
are signals of security and that one can afford to invest time, effort and
money into them.

If you met these millionaires next door, they signal this security in many
different ways outside of material wealth.

~~~
celticmusic
please stop moving the goalpost. I stated that people like us value different
things, and that remains true whether or not you want to argue that people who
don't display the typical social status behavior do display behaviors of some
sort (of course, but it's not interesting).

------
keiferski
Alternatively, opt out of the status game and try to construct and pursue your
own definition of excellence, rather than simply defining it in terms of your
position in the social hierarchy.

" _Main deficiency of active people._ Active men are usually lacking in higher
activity-I mean individual activity. They are active as officials,
businessmen, scholars, that is, as generic beings, but not as quite
particular, single and unique men. In this respect they are lazy.

It is the misfortune of active men that their activity is almost always a bit
irrational. For example, one must not inquire of the money-gathering banker
what the purpose for his restless activity is: it is irrational. Active people
roll like a stone, conforming to the stupidity of mechanics.

Today as always, men fall into two groups: slaves and free men. Whoever does
not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a
statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar."

\- Nietzsche

~~~
lazyjones
Nietzsche famously didn't understand one thing: women / mating strategies. The
banker's purpose isn't meaningless, it's a means to an end (even if not always
consciously pursued that way) and generally works very well.

~~~
throwlaplace
people say this all the time but poor people are having kids at a much higher
rate than rich people so the theory doesn't pan- if your goal was to have kids
you'd stay with your high school sweetheart. and now you'll say "but the
banker is trying to attract a high quality mate" to which I'll say that's
circular as "quality" here is a synonynm for status.

celibate or not I wouldn't discount Nietzsche; he was pretty insightful.

~~~
bobbydroptables
>people say this all the time but poor people are having kids at a much higher
rate than rich people so the theory doesn't pan- if your goal was to have kids
you'd stay with your high school sweetheart.

The theory definitely pans.

You just tried to make it fail by putting the cart about 500 miles in front of
the horse. Many accomplished people don't want kids at all and if they do,
they usually don't want a lot of them.

If they wanted to have a bunch of kids they could.

They're not "losing" to people in third world countries by not having kids.

>I wouldn't discount Nietzsche

I wouldn't judge theories based on who made them. Judge them based on their
own quality, logic and evidence.

------
zweep
I remember hearing a story about Walmart founder Sam Walton at an annual
vendors meeting. He walked up onto the stage and pulled his glasses out of his
pocket and a bunch of his personal effects got pulled out and spilled on the
floor and he got on his hands and knees to pick them up before going on stage.
Then in another meeting with a completely different set of people he did the
same exact thing. The guy who told me the story asked him what was going on
and he said that the vendors in the room were making American median income
and he was one of the richest guys in the world and he had to bring himself
down a notch if he was going to connect with them.

This kind of stuff is harder to do now, since the first one would have been on
Twitter within minutes.

------
Hokusai
There are good ideas in the post. For me, it shows the different
understandings of the current politic climate.

Some people things on creating a common ground where everybody has the same
value. Other people want to have a clear hierarchy that states what is your
place in society.

I am clearly biased to choose the common ground approach. I have grown
suspicious with the people that look for a clear hierarchy because usually
they also couple that with them being at the top. If you want to have a clear
hierarchy, that may be useful, you need to be able to agree to be at the
bottom.

But, to look at the different perspectives may help to understand each other
better and create a way to work out solutions that are acceptable for
everybody.

------
ahi
Of course this is written by an academic. Most of the rewards and penalties of
academia are status related. No one besides the football coach is making
private sector money, and no one gets fired for anything less than a felony.
There are large portions of the ivory tower that do nothing more than burnish
the self-importance of other status seekers; armies of Associate Dean of
Innovative Circle Jerks attending pointless conferences.

This is largely unavoidable in large organizations. As another article
recently posted here described, it's a natural consequence of hierarchical
layers never interacting with people doing the work (the bottom) or the people
ultimately accountable (the top).

The real danger comes when status seeking culture overwhelms the organization
as it has a tendency to be infectious. Status becomes the currency as well
method of getting ahead. "Surely I am entitled to this position of importance
and compensation. I am not full of shit for if I was, I would not deserve this
position of importance and compensation." Actual competence and efficacy are
existential threats to these people, so they further reward those below them
who excel stroking their ego and bullshitting.

No, not everyone is trying to establish status in every interaction. In polite
company we call those people shitheads. Shitheads have a tendency to believe
everyone else is also a shithead. Some of us are actually trying to get things
done, and play their silly games only because it gets them out of our office.

~~~
sangnoir
> Of course this is written by an academic

I see you are truly gifted at this game - that is a sublime opening gambit.

------
leftyted
> There is a philosophical conundrum at the root of all this: morality
> requires we maintain a safety net at the bottom that catches everyone—the
> alternative is simply inhumane—but we also need an aspirational target at
> the top, so as to inspire us to excellence, creativity and accomplishment.
> In other words, we need worth to come for free, and we also need it to be
> acquirable. And no philosopher—not Kant, not Aristotle, not Nietzsche, not
> I—has yet figured out how to construct a moral theory that allows us to say
> both of those things.

Maybe it's true that no philosopher has adequately solved this problem. But
that doesn't seem to matter. Most of us live in societies that provide a
safety net while also providing hierarchies to climb. The fact that there's no
clear philosophical grounding for this doesn't seem to bother us.

~~~
09bjb
> There is a philosophical conundrum at the root of all this: morality
> requires we maintain a safety net at the bottom that catches everyone—the
> alternative is simply inhumane—but we also need an aspirational target at
> the top, so as to inspire us to excellence, creativity and accomplishment.
> In other words, we need worth to come for free, and we also need it to be
> acquirable. And no philosopher—not Kant, not Aristotle, not Nietzsche, not
> I—has yet figured out how to construct a moral theory that allows us to say
> both of those things.

* When your worth is already infinite, you are free to aspire to whatever accomplishment you choose, knowing that it'll be the same in the end whether you get there or not.

* When your worth does not change when it is compared to another's "excellence, creativity, and accomplishment" at some superior "top", you don't have a moral conundrum (or an inferiority complex).

* The "conundrum" becomes non-sensical when you can celebrate the accomplishments of others with the same enthusiasm as your own.

* Worth is not "acquirable": it is something you always have but have to discover. Hoping that comparative excellence, creative output, and worldly accomplishment will provide it for you will simply cost you time.

So I would argue that the real game here is widening your sense of
identification to include all players of the game. And once you're there,
maybe you'll have a lighthearted, arbitrary aspiration to see that that point
of view is spread...

Who wants to play the love game?

~~~
mikelyons
This this this! The problem with trying to teach or share this is that you
have to transcend survival and face your death to become Love/God and devils
will demonize you for speaking this Truth.

So you must go it alone, and realize that you are ultimately alone as The One.

------
mark_l_watson
Status signaling is complicated and I have been thinking lately how
inconsistently I signal. On one hand, I feel very happy with my career and
hobbies like writing books and I signal this to people when I first meet them.
I try to not be obnoxious, but human nature is human nature. On the other
hand, I live in a small town and last spring when I shipped my car across the
country as a gift to my granddaughter, I decided to not buy myself a new car.
I did this for several reasons: environmental, force myself to walk and get
more exercise, and it lets me joke about being poor. For some perverse
reasons, I like signaling a lack of material wealth.

~~~
Aardwolf
Not signaling is also a form of signaling.

~~~
whatshisface
I think this grammatically puts the agency on the wrong people. It's not that
you have to always be signaling, it's that other people are always judging you
and interpreting everything you do. You _can_ transmit no information, but
everyone will catch a case of apophenia and see shapes in the TV static
nonetheless.

------
Whygul
I dug the assessment of the "advanced games" while reading this (and
questioning the degree of my own participation in said games), but felt a
little hard pressed with the soggy take that the 'right' is the party of
populism whereas leftism is for the elite. The left has hsitroically been a
well for a lot of pro-public/populist ideas, like shorter work days, ending
child labor, unionizing, supporting public transit, and rent control, to name
a few. I guess it's kind of a modern American 'democrat' ≠ left thing.

------
3dprintscanner
This reminds me a lot of the idea of Transactional Analysis. It's a study of
the Ego state of people interacting with the world around them and whether
they act as a figurative Parent, Adult or Child in a certain situation and can
explain why people might play a particular status game in some situations and
not in others.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis)

------
kstenerud
> but we also need an aspirational target at the top, so as to inspire us to
> excellence, creativity and accomplishment.

Why do we need this? Is the author suggesting that without an externally
provided target, none shall be inspired?

The status game is inherent to all socially cooperative creatures. It's not a
morality thing; it's an evolutionary thing. It's nothing we can legislate or
moralize or shame away; all you can do is push it underground (as in, "I'm so
important that I don't even need to play" or "I disdain all who play, and am
therefore superior to the rabble who do"), which doesn't solve anything.

In truth, we've already reached a pretty decent point in countering the game's
worst effects. When someone demands "just who do you think you are?", I can
simply respond "I am a free man." And that's that. They'll usually have no
recourse to harm me for such insolence, and their bruised ego is of little
concern in the majority of cases. Long gone are the days where insulting a
Lord would get you run through.

Of course, if you want to enlist the work of others by means other than
coercion or bribes, the status game (i.e. charisma, popularity, respect) is
the only way to do it. So for some occupations, it is essential.

~~~
petra
This is a good analysis, going to the core of the issue.but:

>> all you can do is push it underground (as in, "I'm so important that I
don't even need to play" or "I disdain all who play, and am therefore superior
to the rabble who do"), which doesn't solve anything.

It's possible to teach people humility.

And it's not pushing it underground - It's a good social skill to have if you
want to collaborate with other people.

------
m0llusk
This analysis is shallow because it fails to connect status competition among
people to the larger games we play. Society processes raw materials in order
to produce goods and services which generate security for people. Ultimately
all status games between people relate back to some aspect of the systems that
support society. Are you good at resource extraction? Are too many resources
or the wrong resources being extracted? One might be a great parent but a
terrible cook or the other way around. What exactly that means and is worth
depends on the context and the people.

This is one of the reasons that the great divide is so brutal. One side is
competing based on openness, exploration, and understanding while another is
identifying authority based on measures of sanctity and staying loyal to what
they find is true.

------
athenot
> There is a philosophical conundrum at the root of all this: morality
> requires we maintain a safety net at the bottom that catches everyone—the
> alternative is simply inhumane—but we also need an aspirational target at
> the top, so as to inspire us to excellence, creativity and accomplishment.

The way the author frames this, status is a requirement for "excellence,
creativity and accomplishment".

But there are other motivators for _excellence, creativity and
accomplishment_. Some may have an intrinsic yearning to do what they perceive
is the right thing. Others may be motivated by love and ready to set aside
their own interests for the good of someone else, or for a higher ideal. Still
others may be compelled to act by empathy, by seeing others push their own
boundaries and step in to reduce their load.

Competition is only one motivator.

------
werber
This feels so empty, what the article thinks is the status game just sounds
like normal meeting new people stuff. Obviously there are always status
indicators tied to interests, but I feel like I’m playing the make a new
friend game not some philosophical keeping up with the Joneses

~~~
Loughla
But that's exactly what it is. When you meet people who may be in your social
sphere, inherently these people may have connections to your professional
sphere.

Therefore, your status indicators and signals may have an impact on both your
personal and professional life.

As a concrete example: I was recently passed over for a promotion, for which I
am supremely qualified. The reason being, the person selected plays the status
game better. They network better. They have the connections to people who are
in places of power.

And I refuse to play the status or any other social games. I believe merit, in
and of itself, is the way to achieve. And I am wrong, often.

Anyway, I digress. The reason that it may just feel like the 'make a new
friend game' is because you 'fit' already. You may not have to think about the
keeping up with the Joneses bit, because you are the Joneses. This way of
interacting with new people may just be how you were raised and a part of your
culture, so ingrained that it seems just a part of natural society. Do you
think that's the case?

~~~
werber
I think that's partially true, I feel like I find the weirdos like me wherever
I go and we just get on. I'm also not great at climbing the corporate ladder,
but, I really don't care as long as I'm growing in what feels like a positive
direction for my life as a whole.

------
roenxi
Part of what this is getting to is that the elites are, in a sense, unmoored.
I can't speak for what they individually feel but there must be some
acceptance that Facebook and Google just don't measure up to Standard Oil or
Toyota in terms of real world impact. The electronic companies can measure up,
but they are becoming more of an Asian phenomenon. Maybe the drug companies.

I have a half-formed view that many of societies elites are trying to pretend
that they are something else because they don't know how to handle the
responsibility of maintaining the complex machinery of society. They don't
want to actually let go of their power and status though.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
I suspect that to the elites, the world today is as scary and uncertain as it
is for the rest of us. I always get a kick out of watching the Davos videos -
this convention of world leaders reminds me of nothing so much as my small-
town elementary school, what with all the fads, cliques, and isolation from
the wider world. I'd be scared too.

I suspect for example that most of the Davos set truly believes in and is
worried about climate change, but also knows that anything they try to do in
response will be ineffectual within one election cycle. I imagine a scene
where some respected member of their inner circle admonishes them that they
need a populist of their own to sell their solutions, and they quietly agree
but can't get along with anyone who would actually be popular.

~~~
listenallyall
>> most of the Davos set truly believes in and is worried about climate change

Over a thousand private jets would indicate the opposite. Perhaps one owner
could offer to fly Greta to her next destination, surely one of them must be
going to the same place?

~~~
SuoDuanDao
One can believe in the reality of a problem and rationalize one's own
contribution.

I'm a prime example - I don't need to run a vehicle, I could take the bus to
work. Of course, I'd spend two more hours every day commuting, get behind on
my sleep, and my health and work performance would suffer. It might be the
best thing I could do for the climate. But I'm convinced enough that I'm on
the side of the better angels that I do this harm to my fellow organisms in
hopes it will make me more effective where it counts.

If I was an Oligarch or world leader commuting to the biggest professional
convention of the year, my considerations - and I daresay my decision - would
be identical, just on a larger scale.

------
scoutt
The downside might be that when you are aware of this, it may create a
prejudice when meeting new people. Somehow I know (or think I know) that most
people won't meet my interests to settle a common ground. It's not that my
interests are _better_ , it's just I am not into common things like TV shows,
politics, sports, religion, etc.

This keeps me from talking to people except those who I already know (perhaps
from a time when the prejudice was not so influential). I don't want to play
_status games_ because I have no interest to begin with.

Of course, the above excludes these tangential thoughts that one may share on
HN :)

~~~
luckyscs
To be fair, I am into TV shows politics sports and religion and have a hard
time finding people who are thinking about and discussing these things in a
way that I appreciate.

------
bustedtin2017
I love to play this game by taking the oneupmanship to an absurd level. If
someone is humble bragging about stressing over a speaking engagement, I’ll
causally mention that the student organizations that book speakers at Yale can
be difficult to work with. If they start talking about their Tesla, I’ll work
in a mention about how tragic it is that Fedship isn’t committing enough
resources to electric conversions. I was at a work function and a colleague
was going on about Zenga suits, I then started complaining that Zilli hasn’t
opened enough boutiques in North America.

I don’t even own a car or a suit, much less a superyacht or far-end men’s
couture.

I don’t play in bad faith like this if I value the input of the people I’m
talking to. I definitely smile and nod if I like or need something from
someone playing this game. I suppose by displaying awareness of the brands I’m
also engaging in the game on the same side of the spectrum as the folks who
actually wear a Rolex/Patek watch.

Anywho, if you find yourself In a conversation with someone bitching about how
the tax benefits of a third vacation home aren’t what they used to be, you
might be talking to me.

------
majos
Reminds me of something I read in _Impro_ (recommended by someone on HN, and a
readable-if-totally-anecdotal collection of writings on status): a marker of
friendship is the ability to deliberately and enjoyably play status games.

------
punkbrwstr
Which game is it where you drop the word "otiose" in the second paragraph?

~~~
haecceity
It's the "I read a lot of books and I want people to know" game.

------
zweep
I find myself playing the Leveling Game with cleaners, drivers, etc. and
talking about the football team or similar. But it also feels the most
preening kind of status assertion — like Harvard grads telling you they went
to school “in Boston.” The worst offender is Warren Buffett, whose self
professed lifestyle of a $100K house and McDonalds which is just a way of
saying “I’m so superior to you that the granite countertops and Michelin
restaurants you lust over and will never afford are so meaningless to my
amazingly enlightened soul that I could have them for free and don’t bother.”

------
smallcharleston
Christianity already solved this. There is a hierarchy but it’s invisible and
you can’t access it. The one you see is not especially relevant to anything
except social custom and determining your responsibilities.

------
Gimpei
I struggle a bit with pieces like this because I genuinely am not trying to
establish or gauge another person's status when I first meet them. And I
really don't think I'm in denial on this. Outside of a business context, it
doesn't feel all that important, nor does it feel in any way clear cut. What
qualifies as higher status anyway? It's going to vary based on idiosyncratic
values whether you are more impressed by a painter or a CEO or an academic or
an activist or a caregiver etc.

------
herghost
"we need worth to come for free, and we also need it to be acquirable."

The more I think about this single sentence, the more I feel like it's holding
so much more than it first appears to be.

------
BjoernKW
"[...] has yet figured out how to construct a moral theory that allows us to
say both of those things."

Oh, but Nietzsche has. This is what master morality vs. slave morality is
about.

------
czbond
This is an absolute engineer thing to say in the realm of efficiency, logic,
and disliker-of-the-boredom-smalltalk-is, but I cannot wait until can meet and
through a digital display see, then have matched our common interests. That
way I don't have to pretend to care about a football game if I have nothing to
add about it, if we can connect over something we both are passionate about.

------
chadlavi
This is a really fucking grim view of humanity!

Is it not possible for someone to just want to find common positive interests
hobbies and goals with a stranger so they can make a connection and be
friends? Does it have to be back-stabby position jockeying and dick-measuring?
We don't live in an Aaron Sorkin universe. Sometimes smalltalk is just small
talk.

~~~
hashkb
She's observing a common phenomenon. I don't think she's saying all human
interaction is a status negotiation.

------
bullen
What is value? What is money! What is energy...

------
mapcars
The guy thinks morality is required, but it is not.

