Recently I posted on otherwise puzzling behavior that can be easily explained via seeking status via affiliations. Students prefer distracted profs who grade and recommend corruptibly. Macro and foreign advisors have fancy affiliations, not forecast track records.
No, I'd prefer not to give up on Social Science.That said, it seems that you are over-generalizing. Status seeking may be a significant element of some of these activities, while still being a minor factor in others. Likewise there are no doubt individuals engaged in each activity who are significantly influenced by status affiliation, but how explanatory is the idea over the broad mass of people?
Given the temptation to buy into a bold, simple theory of wide applicability I think we need a higher ratio of evidence to anecdote.
I don't dispute that people do get some status from these affiliations; I just don't expect it to be much or to have wide-ranging influence. i.e., people who already know the individual in question may be slightly impressed but it won't broadly impact that person's wider social standing.
To clarify, these kinds of affiliation are typically unidirectional and observers will likely note this and discount the affiliation effect strongly, while the person seeking status affiliation will, from their own perspective, only see that they've gotten closer to a person of high status. To use a more direct example, the fact that you (the blog owner) replied directly to me (an obscure commenter) is more likely to push my subconcious status affiliation reward buttons than it is to actually change my perceived status among other commenters on the blog. For this reason, people will seek status affiliation out of proportion to the actual status benefit they gain from it.
I'm not sure that arguing what people should grant status for would be fruitful. I expect that the affiliation effect in particular is a biologically-driven bias, not a cultural one; though I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew, any theory of common social phenomena is a "far" theory. Are you suggesting we should give up on social science?
here, see here.
soulless, if there is an ancient to modern error I think it is more likely to be in what folks are credited status for, rather than how people react to the crediting of others. It seems to me that people do in fact get higher status from the affiliations I describe; it is less clear if others should be granting them status for these affiliations.
I don't see any reason to assume that status affiliation behavior bears any resemblance to rational methods of actually increasing one's own status in modern society; people may take irrational methods of reaching unacknowledged, irrational goals. A matryoshka model of irrationality, one could say. Status affiliation would have made more sense in a tribal environment, however, likely bringing the whole thing into the realm of an irrational heuristic with semi-optimal results.
The other viable explanation is, of course, that people will accept status as a proxy substitute for almost any other metric, especially metrics that are more difficult to evaluate quickly. It's not clear that this is actually a bad first-order approximation, either.
The two models are not necessarily contradictory and assuming one probably fully explains the other. I'm not sure how one would tell the difference.
mentioning that you were treated by a high status doctor will not improve your rank within most sub-communities. such things have limited 'social currency': they are very rarely assigned much weight when determining intra-group rank. if someone cannot demonstrate or signal social value through an affiliation it seems unlikely status motivated them to seek it out.
the simplest explanation is that patients assume status represents quality.
You might consider this idea in terms of near/far bias, as you are essentially suggesting that the great mass of socially distant people are governed by a stable trait (status seeking) over a wide range of different contexts.
That should give you pause when dismissing detailed accounts that don't generalize over the whole class of activities.
So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?
Eliezer, while hardly overwhelming it is stronger than we want to admit, and we commonly let it win even when we can comprehend other relevant considerations.
Bill, I don't see how this is more convoluted than the explanations you suggest.
Is the desire to gain status by affiliation an overwhelmingly powerful urge that overrides our better knowledge? Or is it just that high-status affiliation is the only emotionally native feeling we can comprehend, while all the statistics just seem like numbers on paper?
"So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?"
Steve Jobs is the master at this, of course. Try showing off your Zune instead of your iPhone. The industry associated with this is called "marketing."
One thing to note is that although people may have an instinctive feeling that affiliations like these will increase their status, actually they do not, for the most part. Yes, there are some cases where you can say "I voted for Obama" or "I went to the Mayo Clinic" and perhaps gain some status, but just having voted for a congressman or having a doctor with a good diploma doesn't confer much status at all.
In tribal days, affiliations with the big boss or other VIPs really made a difference, but in our society those instincts don't do us much good. And as in many of these examples, they just get in the way of potentially desirable institutional change.
Whenever I hear about an irrationality, I always have the same, first instinctive thought: How can I make money off of this? Usually I can't think of a way, or else there's already a thriving industry built around it, like insurance or gambling.
So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?
"Better" because simpler and more direct. There is no need to come up with convoluted "explanations" for these when simpler and more direct explanations are adequate.
I'm not claiming status-seeking has no influence on these, but status-seeking influences almost everything neurotypicals do, it just doesn't seem likely that it is the most important influence on these particular behaviors.
Since status-seeking has negative externalities it would make sense to tax it. This is difficult to do directly, but a progressive consumption tax would help.
Students prefer distracted profs who grade and recommend corruptibly.Voters far prefer representatives over direct democracy-- Are better explained by simple laziness.
Voters far prefer representatives over random selection.Donors prefer to picking grantees, over giving prizes to whoever succeeds.Investors prefer actively managed funds that lose on average.-- Are better explained by "the delusion of control". Like college admissions thinking they could do a better job picking candidates by multiple criteria than using test scores alone, and being wrong.
No, I'd prefer not to give up on Social Science.That said, it seems that you are over-generalizing. Status seeking may be a significant element of some of these activities, while still being a minor factor in others. Likewise there are no doubt individuals engaged in each activity who are significantly influenced by status affiliation, but how explanatory is the idea over the broad mass of people?
Given the temptation to buy into a bold, simple theory of wide applicability I think we need a higher ratio of evidence to anecdote.
I don't dispute that people do get some status from these affiliations; I just don't expect it to be much or to have wide-ranging influence. i.e., people who already know the individual in question may be slightly impressed but it won't broadly impact that person's wider social standing.
To clarify, these kinds of affiliation are typically unidirectional and observers will likely note this and discount the affiliation effect strongly, while the person seeking status affiliation will, from their own perspective, only see that they've gotten closer to a person of high status. To use a more direct example, the fact that you (the blog owner) replied directly to me (an obscure commenter) is more likely to push my subconcious status affiliation reward buttons than it is to actually change my perceived status among other commenters on the blog. For this reason, people will seek status affiliation out of proportion to the actual status benefit they gain from it.
I'm not sure that arguing what people should grant status for would be fruitful. I expect that the affiliation effect in particular is a biologically-driven bias, not a cultural one; though I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew, any theory of common social phenomena is a "far" theory. Are you suggesting we should give up on social science?
here, see here.
soulless, if there is an ancient to modern error I think it is more likely to be in what folks are credited status for, rather than how people react to the crediting of others. It seems to me that people do in fact get higher status from the affiliations I describe; it is less clear if others should be granting them status for these affiliations.
I don't see any reason to assume that status affiliation behavior bears any resemblance to rational methods of actually increasing one's own status in modern society; people may take irrational methods of reaching unacknowledged, irrational goals. A matryoshka model of irrationality, one could say. Status affiliation would have made more sense in a tribal environment, however, likely bringing the whole thing into the realm of an irrational heuristic with semi-optimal results.
The other viable explanation is, of course, that people will accept status as a proxy substitute for almost any other metric, especially metrics that are more difficult to evaluate quickly. It's not clear that this is actually a bad first-order approximation, either.
The two models are not necessarily contradictory and assuming one probably fully explains the other. I'm not sure how one would tell the difference.
mentioning that you were treated by a high status doctor will not improve your rank within most sub-communities. such things have limited 'social currency': they are very rarely assigned much weight when determining intra-group rank. if someone cannot demonstrate or signal social value through an affiliation it seems unlikely status motivated them to seek it out.
the simplest explanation is that patients assume status represents quality.
You might consider this idea in terms of near/far bias, as you are essentially suggesting that the great mass of socially distant people are governed by a stable trait (status seeking) over a wide range of different contexts.
That should give you pause when dismissing detailed accounts that don't generalize over the whole class of activities.
So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?
Celebrity gossip magazines?Product endorsements?Charge admission?
Eliezer, while hardly overwhelming it is stronger than we want to admit, and we commonly let it win even when we can comprehend other relevant considerations.
Bill, I don't see how this is more convoluted than the explanations you suggest.
Is the desire to gain status by affiliation an overwhelmingly powerful urge that overrides our better knowledge? Or is it just that high-status affiliation is the only emotionally native feeling we can comprehend, while all the statistics just seem like numbers on paper?
@Hal
"So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?"
Steve Jobs is the master at this, of course. Try showing off your Zune instead of your iPhone. The industry associated with this is called "marketing."
One thing to note is that although people may have an instinctive feeling that affiliations like these will increase their status, actually they do not, for the most part. Yes, there are some cases where you can say "I voted for Obama" or "I went to the Mayo Clinic" and perhaps gain some status, but just having voted for a congressman or having a doctor with a good diploma doesn't confer much status at all.
In tribal days, affiliations with the big boss or other VIPs really made a difference, but in our society those instincts don't do us much good. And as in many of these examples, they just get in the way of potentially desirable institutional change.
Whenever I hear about an irrationality, I always have the same, first instinctive thought: How can I make money off of this? Usually I can't think of a way, or else there's already a thriving industry built around it, like insurance or gambling.
So how can you make money out of people's mistaken belief that they gain status by affiliating with high-status individuals, even when the affiliation is rather remote and they are just one of millions participating?
"Better" because simpler and more direct. There is no need to come up with convoluted "explanations" for these when simpler and more direct explanations are adequate.
I'm not claiming status-seeking has no influence on these, but status-seeking influences almost everything neurotypicals do, it just doesn't seem likely that it is the most important influence on these particular behaviors.
Since status-seeking has negative externalities it would make sense to tax it. This is difficult to do directly, but a progressive consumption tax would help.
asdf:Most people believe "numbers are bunk, reasoning is for eggheads, and status reflects ability and is the best predictor for success."
That bears repeating.But how can one distinguish it from RH's scenario?
I just added to the post.
Jess, it is the random selection option that could most clearly be expanded greatly relative to choosing representatives.
Mike and Philip, but docs with more prestigious affiliations are not healthier.
Philip, resistance to AI air traffic control sounds interesting.
Bill, why "better"?
Students prefer distracted profs who grade and recommend corruptibly.Voters far prefer representatives over direct democracy-- Are better explained by simple laziness.
Voters far prefer representatives over random selection.Donors prefer to picking grantees, over giving prizes to whoever succeeds.Investors prefer actively managed funds that lose on average.-- Are better explained by "the delusion of control". Like college admissions thinking they could do a better job picking candidates by multiple criteria than using test scores alone, and being wrong.