Comments on: A Hierarchy of Hierarchies http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Caliban http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1335 Caliban Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:22:06 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1335 " How many of the high-status elite would long survive in a state of nature?" The Governor of California would probably do pretty well. :) ” How many of the high-status elite would long survive in a state of nature?”

The Governor of California would probably do pretty well. :)

]]> By: Christopher M http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1334 Christopher M Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:49:20 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1334 Pretty much everyone with "elevated status" in our society owes that status in significant part to "force" and not just their own "essential qualities." How many of the high-status elite would long survive in a state of nature? Pretty much everyone with “elevated status” in our society owes that status in significant part to “force” and not just their own “essential qualities.” How many of the high-status elite would long survive in a state of nature?

]]> By: johngalt2112 http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1333 johngalt2112 Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:03:36 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1333 This post was beautifully written, but I have to wonder if the skateboarders and other less cool cliques were really as confident in their status as jocks and other more universally recognized cool kids. I think the solution is learning to be happy with yourself for what you do with what you have, rather than how you compare with others. That may be easier said than done. But there is an obvious rebuttal to Farrell, and that is that any kind of forced redistribution won't help people's sense of self-satisfaction at all so long as they realize their elevated status is due only to force, and not because their own essential characteristics have raised them. Also, every society has hierarchies, so the question is which one is in best service to the good. This post was beautifully written, but I have to wonder if the skateboarders and other less cool cliques were really as confident in their status as jocks and other more universally recognized cool kids.

I think the solution is learning to be happy with yourself for what you do with what you have, rather than how you compare with others. That may be easier said than done.

But there is an obvious rebuttal to Farrell, and that is that any kind of forced redistribution won’t help people’s sense of self-satisfaction at all so long as they realize their elevated status is due only to force, and not because their own essential characteristics have raised them. Also, every society has hierarchies, so the question is which one is in best service to the good.

]]> By: Christopher M http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1332 Christopher M Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:00:24 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1332 Happily, Steve, there are straight women out there impressed by a man's status on any number of hierarchies. I have no idea if World of Warcraft is one of them, but there are certainly women who'd take a talented rock star, lefty activist, or motorcycle gang leader over anyone on the Forbes 400 in a second. Who knows, maybe there are even women who'd prefer the most ubiquitous purveyor of racialist propaganda on the interblogs! Happily, Steve, there are straight women out there impressed by a man’s status on any number of hierarchies. I have no idea if World of Warcraft is one of them, but there are certainly women who’d take a talented rock star, lefty activist, or motorcycle gang leader over anyone on the Forbes 400 in a second. Who knows, maybe there are even women who’d prefer the most ubiquitous purveyor of racialist propaganda on the interblogs!

]]> By: Steve Sailer http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1331 Steve Sailer Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:50:56 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1331 Men can make up as many status hierarchies as they want, but women don't have to care. I suspect that being on the Forbes 400 impresses women more than being among the top 400 World of Warcraft whatevers. Men can make up as many status hierarchies as they want, but women don’t have to care. I suspect that being on the Forbes 400 impresses women more than being among the top 400 World of Warcraft whatevers.

]]> By: Caliban http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1330 Caliban Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:46:06 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1330 I sure rocked out the SAT words index there, with "inexorably," "ameliorate," "Warcraft," and "malleability." -Brian Moore I sure rocked out the SAT words index there, with “inexorably,” “ameliorate,” “Warcraft,” and “malleability.”

-Brian Moore

]]> By: Caliban http://www.juliansanchez.com/2006/10/26/a-hierarchy-of-hierarchies/comment-page-1/#comment-1329 Caliban Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:27:45 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1391#comment-1329 I like how Warcraft status is getting to be the archetype of "big fish in a little pond." :) As a player, I can say it's a good one. To me, the key feature of the discussion is the malleability of the effects of status seeking. People are capable of tuning it out and the negatives we would seek to ameliorate through policy could be ignored. The justification for a minimum level of welfare is that people need food, housing, warmth. Without them, they actually will suffer and die, unless they're a Breatharian. :) But for status seeking, you choose whether or not to accept the negative externality of "superior status pollution." You say, in not so many words "I have decided to be harmed emotionally by that guy's good fortune." You could (and I do) just say "eh, good for him." It's not a negative that is inexorably imposed upon you like starvation. How can we establish policy with such un-measurable and imprecise effects? Most people resent the success of mean people more than nice people. Should mean rich people receive a higher tax than nice rich people? How can we enact any policy that is entirely dependent on the subjective perspective of other? I like how Warcraft status is getting to be the archetype of “big fish in a little pond.” :) As a player, I can say it’s a good one.

To me, the key feature of the discussion is the malleability of the effects of status seeking. People are capable of tuning it out and the negatives we would seek to ameliorate through policy could be ignored. The justification for a minimum level of welfare is that people need food, housing, warmth. Without them, they actually will suffer and die, unless they’re a Breatharian. :)

But for status seeking, you choose whether or not to accept the negative externality of “superior status pollution.” You say, in not so many words “I have decided to be harmed emotionally by that guy’s good fortune.” You could (and I do) just say “eh, good for him.” It’s not a negative that is inexorably imposed upon you like starvation. How can we establish policy with such un-measurable and imprecise effects?

Most people resent the success of mean people more than nice people. Should mean rich people receive a higher tax than nice rich people? How can we enact any policy that is entirely dependent on the subjective perspective of other?

]]>