21 months ago, I said: We like to give others the impression that we personally mainly want prestige in ourselves and our associates, and that we only grant others status via the prestige they have earned. But let me suggest that, compared to this ideal, we actually want more dominance in ourselves and our associates than we like to admit, and we submit more often to dominance. In the following, I’ll offer three lines of evidence for this claim. First consider that we like to copy the consumer purchases of people that we envy, but not of people we admire for being “warm” and socially responsible. … Second, consider the fact that when our bosses or presidents retire and leave office, their legitimate prestige should not have diminished much. … Yet others usually show far less interest in associating with such retirees. … For my third line of evidence, … for long term mates we more care about prestige features that are good for the group, but for short term mates, we care more about dominance features that are more directly useful to us personally. (
I agree with your thesis, but this particular argument seems to be equally explained by poor accounting - all your examples talk about situations where power is easily and quickly gauged, while adjusting for handicap requires time and conscious attention.
Do you have an instance where inferring power is hard, handicap easy and automatic, yet people still seem to emphasize the former?
Otherwise it's just the usual - What's Quickly Processed Is All There Is.
I want my intellectual intellectual heroes to be prestigious and competent. Not dominant. (Do you think I'm mistaken about this?)
When awarding prizes, just as when awarding business to a seller, we want to reward achievement. Whether the person faced obstacles to that achievement is not my problem as a buyer - I just want maximum value for my money.
Same for prizes. I want to reward people who achieve great things, and to encourage others to do the same. Whether it was easy or hard for them to do this is their problem, not mine.
"Dominance is about power, while prestige is about ability."
Maybe this is a nit but I don't think prestige is just or even mostly about ability. It's admiration or respect that people feel towards others for any of a number of good and not so good reasons (accomplishment, courage, ability, character, experience, knowledge, wealth, longevity, connections, magnanimity, etc.)
I agree with your thesis, but this particular argument seems to be equally explained by poor accounting - all your examples talk about situations where power is easily and quickly gauged, while adjusting for handicap requires time and conscious attention.
Do you have an instance where inferring power is hard, handicap easy and automatic, yet people still seem to emphasize the former?
Otherwise it's just the usual - What's Quickly Processed Is All There Is.
I want my intellectual intellectual heroes to be prestigious and competent. Not dominant. (Do you think I'm mistaken about this?)
When awarding prizes, just as when awarding business to a seller, we want to reward achievement. Whether the person faced obstacles to that achievement is not my problem as a buyer - I just want maximum value for my money.
Same for prizes. I want to reward people who achieve great things, and to encourage others to do the same. Whether it was easy or hard for them to do this is their problem, not mine.
The real world doesn't grade on effort.
Is there a way to disagree with “Oscars awards are mostly the pretty actors” without being boorish?
Related: what do you make of the recipients of Lifetime Awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or Kennedy Center Honorees?
"Dominance is about power, while prestige is about ability."
Maybe this is a nit but I don't think prestige is just or even mostly about ability. It's admiration or respect that people feel towards others for any of a number of good and not so good reasons (accomplishment, courage, ability, character, experience, knowledge, wealth, longevity, connections, magnanimity, etc.)