Comment by threethirtytwo
1 day ago
>Again, I think you're entirely off base here. Maybe you are status driven enough that you can't wrap your head around someone who isn't, but I'm really just not interested in it. I want to give my family a comfortable life and spend time with them. That's it.
Read carefully the part about science. Status seeking is inherit in biology... it's tied to serotonin levels in your blood. When you say you don't seek status it is not only false, it is unscientific. You're a liar or delusional. End of story. I can literally cite science around this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11275287/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1606800113
This tracks not only in humans, but across multiple species including the lobster. Status seeking is in built into biology and society. Saying you don't status seek is like saying you never felt the emotion of sadness or happiness. At your job, in society, the social hierarchies are everywhere and we are ALL wired to recognize and respond to these things and to SEEK it.
Additionally there is extremely high correlation with women and status. Men with the highest status tend to get the most women. And women are attracted to the men with the highest status. It's directly tied to sexual selection and evolution. Like... this isn't even just a measurable thing via serotonin... it's tied to the theory of evolution and anthropological origins of humans. You literally have no argument other than a pathetic attempt to counter science with anecdotal bullshit.
Saying you don't seek status is in itself status seeking. You're claiming to be holier than thou but it's all just bullshit status signaling because it flies in the face of scientific reality. I think you're more of a person who is unable to obtain status in the human social hierarchy... you're probably among the lowest of society so you might've just given up and called yourself a person who never felt the emotion to status seek. Understandable... but again not realistic.
Also when I say you're pathetically on the bottom of the barrel in terms of status. You shouldn't be offended... because you don't seek status... it's not intrinsic to your character.. You should feel nothing when I call you an utter social outcast with no status whatsoever.
>To color that a little, I've literally told the last 4 managers I've had very explicitly that I'm not at all interested in career advancement. When I was asked to lead my current team, I said "I've done it in the past and can if you want, but check with A and B first to see if they want to". I literally do not care about it.
Bro this is another form of status signaling. "Everyone wants me to be their manager but I don't care for it." lol. It might be true but then again it very well might not be since your statement is a bit braggy here. If you could share with me something people and society will find pathetic and shameful about you... that's more solid proof that you don't care about status. Something like, "Everyone hates me, I've tried to be manager all my life but nobody likes me." That's a more true signal of zero status seeking. But I don't see this in you at all.
To put it in perspective, I think I believe you don't actually want to be manager... but that has nothing to do with not caring for status. It's more likely you're balancing "status" with the extra responsibilities that come with higher status. You can't handle the price that needs to be paid to reach that level so you "settle". Again, very common. You maintain a baseline level of status high enough to keep your wife around (she will leave if your status goes low enough as your status is tied to your ability to raise your family) but it doesn't demand to much out of you. If status was given to you without cost... you would take it without hesitation because... again... you seek status, like all humans do.
>Especially when it comes to teaching, if your identity is "better than child" instead of "person who helps children reach their potential" I'm not sure what to say. Sounds like a narcissist.
No. You're just someone who can't face reality. You have to talk about everything in idealist terms. If a teacher thinks all children are smarter, more educated or better than him, what identity does he have left? How is he even qualified to teach children? A teacher or any human does not think of his job as some selfless charity to society where he is at the utter whim of sacrificing himself for the class room. He has identity and gains status from the role as a "teacher" and that is a huge part of it. It's the same with being a doctor... if you think people become doctors solely just to save people and that it has nothing to do with status... you're out of touch with basic reality.
You not only fail to empathize from the teachers perspective but you succeeded in twisting your response into a direct attack on me. Manipulative. But pointless. This is just an internet forum... winning the crowd doesn't mean shit. This is one of the few opportunities you have to say things that are True and real with no affect on your status.
Anyway what I present is CLEARLY not a narcissistic concept. I am clearly not a narcissist and neither are you. It is a basic concept of basic intelligence. Something you're lacking.
>If we're talking about who's more human, I'd put forward that caring about who's best seems less humanizing than seeking to spend time with people you care about, remembering how lucky you are to have that time, and ignoring outside noise.
When I referred to humans I was more trying to illustrate how your claims don't make sense. Humans seek status period. End of story. If you don't seek status, you're not a human... you're an alien... you clearly aren't an alien... so you're clearly wrong. That was the point.
I'm talking from a hard scientific perspective. You're well outside of that right now and you're only thinking from the perspective of your family. But status seeking is still there, but it's more passed to the status of your children which is still inline with natural selection and biology.
You care for the status of your children, do you not? If your children grew up poor and homeless but extremely happy with their life style would you be content? Or do you care about the status of your children and not want them to grow up ending up in the lowest possible strata of status in human society?
You use research as an argument, which is valid in a conversation where nobody has any information about specifics. E.g. in the pre-life, before a soul is about to be incarnated, you can point to that research and say: you are more likely than not to behave this way. Were the soul to reply, “no I am not, I know myself”, you could call them delusional.
But you’re talking to a person who can point at their actual life and say: I have been in that exact situation and I can confirm that I did not behave that way.
That’s a new observation, and afai understand Bayesian statistics, this is the moment where we must update our priors: how likely is someone who has observed themselves in the past not to behave that way, to behave that way?
Your argument is now incomplete.
Maybe someone with real understanding of Bayesian statistics can frame this better, or tell me why I’m wrong XD
Well how is his experience valid? He may be lying or unaware or delusional or lying to himself. All very common human behaviors.
> Your argument is now incomplete
If my argument is scientific and it’s incomplete then are all scientific arguments incomplete? If science is our best way of determining fact from fiction in reality then based off of the aforementioned logic isn’t the best possible way for humans to determine truth incomplete?
Also in Your attempt to prove me wrong have you thought about how MORE incomplete his argument was?
Everyone can be lying. But I’ve been around human beings long enough to know that there are two very different types of self delusion: valiant assumptions about what you will do in a never before seen situation, and observations about what you have done. GP’s was an objective statement:
> I've worked with people who were super productive with high quality work, and my reaction was to... gravitate toward working more with them.
Neither type of statement is perfectly trustable (nothing is) but IME there is a categorical difference. Your paper (and first comment, “don’t be so quick to judge”, which imo was ironically prescient) are about the former type.
Of course if you disagree with me on this fundamental distinction then we have found our contention :) which would be a nice end to this debate. Don’t you think?
4 replies →
Everything behavioral or psychological science adjacent tends to be "barely science" but sure.
Don't know what to tell you. I'm not the first person to not be interested in "the rat race" (hence the pejorative term for it existing). People like Emerson have probably made the case better than I can. I'm not interested in getting the most women. Actually that sounds gross to me. I instead found the best woman, and fortunately she's also not big on status seeking, and agrees she'd rather have more time with me than me making more money or having a bigger title. My work is a side plot in our lives; my primary title is "Dad".
Unclear how my criticism of a theoretical teacher (or more generally adult) who competes with the children they're supposed to be supporting is a direct attack on you? Self-report? If you're insecure about a literal child's abilities, the solution is to grow your own and show the child that everyone can always be improving, and there are always new things to learn. Or just be happy for their good fortune. Hamstringing them to make up for one's own hangups is clearly narcissist behavior.
It's also not just management. I don't want to climb the IC ladder either. It means more work, more stress, more responsibility, etc. for a relatively small amount of more money. I already make enough money, and I work for money, not status. That money is to pay for things we need like a house. Then once we have what we need, I plan to retire early and spend more time with my family. Maybe find some volunteer work that we could do together. That's it. Work is a side chapter, not my life.
My wife is also on board with this. She was unsure what it would be like when I transitioned to full remote, but then I did and she realized she likes being around me all the time, and wants me to quit once we've paid for the things we need.
I don't think they would be happy homeless so it's somewhat of a silly question. I try to set them up for success and what I think will help them be happy, but that of course includes showing them how to stay grounded. I do hope they'll have modest wants so that it's easy for them to see life as the gift it is.
>Everything behavioral or psychological science adjacent tends to be "barely science" but sure.
Your arguments aren't even science. Barely but sure? What about your own anecdotal statements? That's even less reliable. If the science is all we got, then it's the best we got.
>Don't know what to tell you. I'm not the first person to not be interested in "the rat race" (hence the pejorative term for it existing). People like Emerson have probably made the case better than I can. I'm not interested in getting the most women. Actually that sounds gross to me. I instead found the best woman, and fortunately she's also not big on status seeking, and agrees she'd rather have more time with me than me making more money or having a bigger title. My work is a side plot in our lives; my primary title is "Dad".
We can frame it in terms of the science. You do seek status, but like many you have the inability to pay the cost of reaching higher social status levels, so like many settle for some sort of middle ground. It's extremely common. When you have kids, a huge portion of your "status seeking" shifts to the status of your kids. You work to promote their status in life and you derive a lot of pride from that. In the end it's still status seeking. Whether you seek it for yourself or your genetic future, evolution built you that way.
>Unclear how my criticism of a theoretical teacher (or more generally adult) who competes with the children they're supposed to be supporting is a direct attack on you? Self-report? If you're insecure about a literal child's abilities, the solution is to grow your own and show the child that everyone can always be improving. Or just be happy for their good fortune. Hamstringing them to make up for one's own hangups is clearly narcissist behavior.
It's very clear. You said I sound like a narcissist. That is clearly an attack. It's like if I said your statement sounds like it was said by an idiot. That's also an attack. But it's sort of indirect attacks that skirt around the rules. I didn't say you were an "idiot"... I said your "statement" sounds like it was said by an "idiot". I just cut through the bullshit and went for the intent of the statement.
>If you're insecure about a literal child's abilities, the solution is to grow your own and show the child that everyone can always be improving.
No one is insecure about a child's abilities. They're insecure about their OWN ability to help children. That is the source of the person saying that calculators are "not for games". The person saying that needs an excuse for himself to qualify as a teacher. It happens so fast the person saying that doesn't even realize why.
>It's also not just management. I don't want to climb the IC ladder either. It means more work, more stress, more responsibility, etc. for a relatively small amount of more money.
I've already pointed this out. You're not willing to pay the cost so you settle.
>My wife is also on board with this. She was unsure what it would be like when I transitioned to full remote, but then I did and she realized she likes being around me all the time, and wants me to quit once we've paid for the things we need.
She settled too. Most people in life settle. Top alpha status is hard to get and their are huge costs in getting that status. Everybody wants it, but they just don't want to pay the price.
>I don't think they would be happy homeless so it's somewhat of a silly question. I try to set them up for success and what I think will help them be happy, but that of course includes showing them how to stay grounded. I do hope they'll have modest wants so that it's easy for them to see life as the gift it is.
So they seek status. Because they won't be happy homeless as being homeless is low status.
>I try to set them up for success and what I think will help them be happy
So you think success (aka status seeking) is intrinsically tied to your children's happiness. Stop signalling bro. You're own language and statements reveal yourself.
>I do hope they'll have modest wants so that it's easy for them to see life as the gift it is.
Again this is the evolutionary strategy of "settling". Your passing your own status seeking strategy to your children. And your strategy is based off of "cost" it is not based off of a lack of desire for status. Again, you think optimal cost/benefit ratio is to be a SWE or something. Some people target something lower then that like janitorial engineering. But if status fell on each of your laps for free, you'd take it.
Also it's not just cost/benefit. Status also measures capability. You and your children may be incapable of getting the statuses you want so you settle. When a person is unable to talk about their own weaknesses and lack of ability to get the status they want, then I know they intrinsically seek status. That's why your anecdotal statement of how you turned down a management opportunity even though everyone wanted you to be manager is kind of off. You were humble bragging and bragging is a form of status projecting.
Again, if you truly don't seek status... tell me about something shameful and pathetic about you that if people in general knew about it would lower your status.... can you do that? If not, then that's my point. You, everyone, and that teacher seeks status and the way they talk and what truths they admit to themselves is a result of THAT status seeking. To characterize that teacher as some kind of narcissist or evil person is a complete lack of empathy and misunderstanding of human nature.
Keep in mind, this is the internet, anything you say here doesn't really affect your status in real life. So you're not doing anything in reality to affect your status. But it's still tangible evidence because I believe that status seeking in biology is so strong it will affect your ability to even say something extremely shameful and pathetic on an anonymous forum. Your genetics and behavior were evolved for a time when humans didn't have internet so it doesn't account for this loop hole where you can write and say things publicly that don't affect your status... hence why I'm sure you're gonna maintain your idealistic frame here.
If the best you have is garbage, then you just say that you don't have anything useful. It's like exercise science: there's almost nothing useful there. Don't pretend there is.
If you accept that premise, then you can't frame it in terms of science. You can frame it instead in terms of culture and philosophy, and just say that status obsession is bad. Especially, again, if it turns into literally competing with or feeling threatened by children.
And really, not everything is about status. In fact, if you want something status lowering I guess, we're kind of Billy No-mates, so I don't even have people to compare status with. I've got no Jones' to keep up with! And that's fine.
Again, I've "settled" precisely because I have exactly what I want. It's not the "costs" so much as it is the absence of value. You could argue that I wouldn't pay $100 for a turd because the cost is too high, but the real point is I don't want the turd. You'd have to pay me to take the turd. Like you'd have to pay me to take the higher status job, except they can't pay me enough, and if they did, it would be because I'd be able to save enough to quit shortly thereafter. So really there's just no sustainable world where I keep the higher status position. Because I really, truly, don't want it. It can only distract from what's important to me, and fill my head with things that are not.
Being homeless is an unhappy affair because it's some combination of cold, rainy, snowy, hot, sunny, and stinky, not because it's low status. And because you have nowhere to store e.g. food or clothes, so your situation is precarious. And nowhere to cook, so difficult to eat healthy meals. I highly doubt most homeless people have social status as a top concern.
I'm not sure what I could say that's "shameful" because I'm generally a pretty happy person. In techie circles, I suppose one thing is that my kids are all girls, and I'm going to encourage them to be stay-at-home moms instead of chasing careerism, try to put them into social circles where promiscuity is heavily frowned upon and the primary reason to go to uni is to find a husband (an "Mrs degree"), etc. Very much against the zeitgeist in my work world (and on this site), but I think it's the best way for them to find happiness. So we moved to the South to stay away from West Coast values.
3 replies →
[dead]