http://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/pupchapts/8034-1.htm

I’m not sure this premise applies in many real-world situations. In many places where life is harsh and treated as cheap people frequently choose to take completely unnecessary risks for a variety of reasons, from status-seeking to boredom to fatalistic beliefs or any combination of such reasons. For example, promiscuity and high-volume/low-investment reproductive behavior trends that resemble those of animals with short lifespans persists in HIV ravaged nations despite awareness of the high likelihood that engaging such behavior is likely to prove fatal.

The risks may taken may tend to be less intellectual but they are significant and sometimes involve travel or adventure beyond familiar contexts, e.g. moving from relative poverty to management of a highly profitable but risky transnational drug dealing operation. People inclined to act in a “leadership” capacity, at any level of sophistication (intellectuals and academicians to street gang leaders and tribal chiefs), seem to be inclined to seek out or accept completely unnecessary risks.

Trace a day in your life and see how much of it is signalling. Take a shower ( clean oneself and signal freshness and cleanliness), healthy breakfast ( or otherwise – both will signal something), go to work ( ultimate status signal), have a beer after work ( signal prosperity, etc).

Writing on this blog ( trying to signal that I’m smart – maybe failing at it!).

Tom, the question is why like innocent kids.

That seems to describe 2 different questions: Why do we prefer kids’ be innocent, and why do we respond to innocence.

They are not the same thing. Some things we respond to but prefer to avoid. For instance, we may respond to appeals for help and other begging, yet prefer to avoid experiencing the appeals. (Here I’m talking about voluntary responses, and more generally responses that people wouldn’t prefer to be otherwise)

I think we are talking about the first question; in any case, that is what I answered. I didn’t answer about exploration and status because I don’t find the theory relating innocence to exploration plausible in the first place. IMO Graham took a wrong turn at that point.

And signaling does not predict that you care nothing for the success of your associates’ kids.

It predicts that you would prefer that others not send a competing signal, so that ceteri paribus you would prefer that others’ kids not have the innocence that we presumed sent the valuable signal.

Of course you could introduce an additional independent assumption of concern for your associates’ kids as a countervailing factor. It’s not an Occam-friendly assumption. You’d lose Occam points for it.

PS: “TypePad’s antispam filter” seems to be flagging everything I write as “potential comment spam.” Why?

More specifically to your post, Oleg, I don’t think all “elites” signal status with sheltered kids. Nor do I think elites are so powerful that they can block the middle classes from attempting to conflate with them by adopting a status signal used by elites. A significant portion of elites use “meritocratic” competition of certain types as the primary status signal, and status competition with each other. The only group possibly more elite (although I think they may be more of a rival elite than a higher status elite) than that seems to use helping their offspring become pop stars as a status signaller. The former group is probably exemplified by Chelsea Clinton, with her gold-plated resume (McKinsey! Hedge fund! Masters Degree!). The latter group is probably exemplified by Paris Hilton.

Those are some more of my thoughts on this interesting topic.

If having sheltered kids was a signal of status, the elites would want to make sure unwashed masses do _not_ display the signal reliably. Signal _enforcement_ makes no immediate sense to me. How do you explain it?

Alan, individuals within hunter-gather societies most certainly do hunker down.

Tom, the question is why like innocent kids. And signaling does not predict that you care nothing for the success of your associates’ kids.

Contributor, confidence is a signal of status.

I don’t think signalling has much to do with it. For neurological reasons, fear and curiosity are largely incompatible. A parent wants his or her child to grow up with just the right mix, depending on the environment. Usually this doesn’t require any special effort, because a fearful parent will not comfort their child much, causing their child to become fearful.