Re: "economists model humans as maximizing individual utility. This is the notorious Economic Man. Economic Man is self-interested. He just wants more stuff. In a Hobbesian world, he tries to take your stuff and tries to keep you from taking his stuff."
a) An alternative formulation of what makes "Economic man" tick:
*He wants to make rational choices.*
He consults his motivations. He might be motivated by self-interest -- or, alternatively, by group interest, or by altruism towards a specific individual, or by patriotism, or by prestige, or by concern for the environment, or by principle, or by religious precept, or by revenge, or by envy, and so on.
And he tries to form rational beliefs about facts and mechanisms in the circumstances -- and acknowledges uncertainty and *search costs*.
And he is clear-eyed about risk-taking and about trade-offs between caring about the present and caring about the future.
And he takes into account what others might do.
In a nutshell, he ranks his preferences (which might not be self-interested); considers also risks, time horizon, and what others might do; and makes reasonable effort to identify the best means to his chosen end(s) in the circumstances.
b) Hobbes does emphasize self-interest as a human motivation, but also emphasizes status competition:
"men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity" -- Hobbes, *Leviathan*
It would be great if people made mostly rational choices, but I sure don't see that much rationality around. I will admit, though, that a lot of things I consider irrational probably could be considered rational, taking into account things like status-seeking. (A lot of the status games seem quite irrational to me.)
Is there any difference between the conclusion and Robin Hanson's near/far mode distinctions, which he talks about as coming out of construal level theory and the conclusion here in your writing and in Hanson is that new social technologies change or jumble the construal level?
Where is the "Power" motivation preached by all the social science departments? The economic motivation only wants my wallet, the status motivation only requires someones adulation, the "power" motivation demands obedience which gives him/her both my wallet and forced adulation.
"Moreover, I think that the Internet and social media have altered the playing field for these games."
Absolutely. It has also allowed a lot of nobodies to be heard (and seen) by a lot more people. This did not happen at the era of television, not to mention earlier time. This is definitely shaking up things until they will settle. For the best in my view, even if I find it scary every now and then (on a daily basis).
A partial rejoinder could be that in a connected world that can cater to more and more tastes (along a longer tail), people can seek status in smaller domains. That is, in a “I am the tallest dwarf” sense, I might have low status elsewhere but I enjoy high status in this chosen domain. To some extent status games could be greater than zero sum.
Is there much distinction between doing well in status and doing well economically? Are there many high status people without much stuff or people with lots of stuff who are low status?
I think there probably are, but they are the exception, and most of the time the two go together. Also interesting to think whether online and 'real world ' status are perfect substitutes or different? Does someone who gets lots of likes and retweets but is anonymous in the physical world feel the same way about their status as someone who gets mobbed by adoring fans when they go to the shops but does little online?
I've noticed a new crop of young right for which everything reduces to some stealth selfish motivation. I suspect they love accusing everyone else of playing status games because that's what *they* do.
Meanwhile the "woke" just go around behaving in a certain way because they straightforwardly think that's the moral thing to do. Even their reputation of being a new religion suggests that's what they are doing. Meanwhile the critics are, what, religionless, cunning materialist conmen for which everything is instrumental and not intrinsically valued?
Whether Economic or Sociological Man, we homo sapiens frequently sub-optimize our decisions to our own detriment. Even the status game is unhealthy. Yet it's baked into our DNA and then gets reinforced in our interactions. I think of humans when watching our bird feeder and see birds chasing one another away to keep the food to themselves, yet spilling seed to the ground to the waiting squirrels.
Re: "economists model humans as maximizing individual utility. This is the notorious Economic Man. Economic Man is self-interested. He just wants more stuff. In a Hobbesian world, he tries to take your stuff and tries to keep you from taking his stuff."
a) An alternative formulation of what makes "Economic man" tick:
*He wants to make rational choices.*
He consults his motivations. He might be motivated by self-interest -- or, alternatively, by group interest, or by altruism towards a specific individual, or by patriotism, or by prestige, or by concern for the environment, or by principle, or by religious precept, or by revenge, or by envy, and so on.
And he tries to form rational beliefs about facts and mechanisms in the circumstances -- and acknowledges uncertainty and *search costs*.
And he is clear-eyed about risk-taking and about trade-offs between caring about the present and caring about the future.
And he takes into account what others might do.
In a nutshell, he ranks his preferences (which might not be self-interested); considers also risks, time horizon, and what others might do; and makes reasonable effort to identify the best means to his chosen end(s) in the circumstances.
b) Hobbes does emphasize self-interest as a human motivation, but also emphasizes status competition:
"men are continually in competition for Honour and Dignity" -- Hobbes, *Leviathan*
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3207/pg3207-images.html#link2HCH0013
It would be great if people made mostly rational choices, but I sure don't see that much rationality around. I will admit, though, that a lot of things I consider irrational probably could be considered rational, taking into account things like status-seeking. (A lot of the status games seem quite irrational to me.)
Christianity provides a means to gain status in a non-zero sum way that emphasizes localized and pro-social behavior.
We’ve thrown that off and now people are desperately attempting to compete on other vectors which are much less forgiving and are ultimately empty.
Is there any difference between the conclusion and Robin Hanson's near/far mode distinctions, which he talks about as coming out of construal level theory and the conclusion here in your writing and in Hanson is that new social technologies change or jumble the construal level?
Where is the "Power" motivation preached by all the social science departments? The economic motivation only wants my wallet, the status motivation only requires someones adulation, the "power" motivation demands obedience which gives him/her both my wallet and forced adulation.
"Moreover, I think that the Internet and social media have altered the playing field for these games."
Absolutely. It has also allowed a lot of nobodies to be heard (and seen) by a lot more people. This did not happen at the era of television, not to mention earlier time. This is definitely shaking up things until they will settle. For the best in my view, even if I find it scary every now and then (on a daily basis).
A partial rejoinder could be that in a connected world that can cater to more and more tastes (along a longer tail), people can seek status in smaller domains. That is, in a “I am the tallest dwarf” sense, I might have low status elsewhere but I enjoy high status in this chosen domain. To some extent status games could be greater than zero sum.
As I say, only a partial rejoinder.
Is there much distinction between doing well in status and doing well economically? Are there many high status people without much stuff or people with lots of stuff who are low status?
I think there probably are, but they are the exception, and most of the time the two go together. Also interesting to think whether online and 'real world ' status are perfect substitutes or different? Does someone who gets lots of likes and retweets but is anonymous in the physical world feel the same way about their status as someone who gets mobbed by adoring fans when they go to the shops but does little online?
What about Buchanan’s Artifactual Man?
I've noticed a new crop of young right for which everything reduces to some stealth selfish motivation. I suspect they love accusing everyone else of playing status games because that's what *they* do.
Meanwhile the "woke" just go around behaving in a certain way because they straightforwardly think that's the moral thing to do. Even their reputation of being a new religion suggests that's what they are doing. Meanwhile the critics are, what, religionless, cunning materialist conmen for which everything is instrumental and not intrinsically valued?
Whether Economic or Sociological Man, we homo sapiens frequently sub-optimize our decisions to our own detriment. Even the status game is unhealthy. Yet it's baked into our DNA and then gets reinforced in our interactions. I think of humans when watching our bird feeder and see birds chasing one another away to keep the food to themselves, yet spilling seed to the ground to the waiting squirrels.
Is there any research on how to quantify status?
Okay; now this is chatbot content