What if "status" IS a terminal value for most people?

[Inspired by a few of the science bits in HP:MOR, and far more so by the discussions between Draco and Harry about "social skills". Shared because I suspect it's an insight some people would benefit from.]

One of the more prominent theories on the evolution of human intelligence suggests that humans involved intelligence, not to deal with their environment, but rather to deal with each other. A small intellectual edge would foster competition, and it would result in the sort of recursive, escalating loop that's required to explain why we're so SUBSTANTIALLY smarter than every other species on the planet.

If you accept that premise, it's obvious that intelligence should, naturally, come with a desire to compete against other humans. It should be equally obvious from looking at human history that, indeed, we seem to do exactly that.

Posit, then, that, linked to intelligence, there's a trait for politics - using intelligence to compete against other humans, to try and establish dominance via cunning instead of brawn.

And, like everything that the Blind Idiot God Evolution has created, imagine that there are humans who LACK this trait for politics, but still have intelligence.

Think about the humans who, instead of looking inwards at humanity for competition, instead turn outwards to the vast uncaring universe of physics and chemistry. Other humans are an obtainable target - a little evolutionary push, and your tribe can outsmart any other tribe. The universe is not nearly so easily cowed, though. The universe is, often, undefeatable, or at least, we have not come close to mastering it. Six thousand years and people still die to storms and drought and famine. Six thousand years, and we have just touched on the moon, just begun to even SEE other planets that might contain life like ours.

I never understood other people before, because I'm missing that trait.

And I finally, finally, understand that this trait even exists, and what it must BE like, to have the trait.

We are genetic, chemical beings. I believe this with every ounce of myself. There isn't a soul that defies physics, there is not a consciousness that defies neurology. The world, even ourselves, can be measured. Anger comes from a part of this mixture, as does happiness and love. They are not lesser for this. They are not!

This is not an interlude. It is woven in to the meaning of what I realized. If you have this trait, then part of your values, as fundamental to yourself as eating and breathing and drinking, is the desire for status, to assert a certain form of dominance. Intelligence can almost be measured by status and cunning, and those who try to cheat and use crass physical violence are indeed generally condemned for it.

I don't have this trait. I don't value status in and of itself. It's useful, because it lets me do other things. It opens doors. So I invest in still having status, but status is not a goal; Status is to me, as a fork is to hunger - merely a means to an end.

So I have never, not once in my life, been able to comprehend the simple truth: 90% of the people I meet, quite possibly more, value status, as an intrinsic thing. Indeed, they are meant to use their intelligence as a tool to obtain this status. It is how we rose to where we are in the world.

I don't know what to make of this. It means everything I'd pieced together about people is utterly, utterly wrong, because it assumed that they all valued truth, and understanding - the pursuits of intelligence when you don't have the political trait.

I am, for a moment, deeply, deeply lost.

But, I notice, I am no longer confused.

Comments

sorted by
magical algorithm
Highlighting new comments since Today at 12:58 AM
Select new highlight date
All comments loaded

I don't know what to make of this. It means everything I'd pieced together about people is utterly, utterly wrong, because it assumed that they all valued truth, and understanding - the pursuits of intelligence when you don't have the political trait.

"Truth" and "understanding" seem to work as applause lights in this sentence. "Status" is used to the opposite effect throughout the post.

I think you're premise is a little confused. It sounds like you previously viewed status-seeking as the emotional equivalent of immoral, but now you don't because you realize it has adaptational advantages. I find it strange that you feel evolutionary causation is adequate to justify something, but I guess I won't question that.

More to the point, I think you're misjudging status. Status isn't as simple Machiavellian plays for power. It's generally assumed that only sociopaths play for dominance in and of itself. The term "status" feels kinda dirty when you analyze human interaction from afar. There's always the subtext that if you play for it, you're a bad person. That's not the way it feels when you're actually talking to other people.

Seeking status can feel like trying to live up to the expectations of people you care about. It can feel like trying to stand on equal ground with your friends. It can feel like trying be comfortable talking to that girl at the grocery store.

When people look at status seeking under a microscope, they usually try to screen off the humanity of its experience and so it comes off as something a super villain would do. When you actually feel it, it feels right. It feels very human. If you interact with other people at all, I can almost (not quite) guarantee that you seek status, you just don't call it status.

I don't have this trait. I don't value status in and of itself. It's useful, because it lets me do other things. It opens doors. So I invest in still having status, but status is not a goal; Status is to me, as a fork is to hunger - merely a means to an end.

Are you certain of this? Don't get me wrong it seems possible. But that paragraph will be seen by many people as a grab for status in the LessWrong community.

Which statement in this context would one consider as evidence for not valuing status?

Which statement in this context would one consider as evidence for not valuing status?

This statement is evidence for not valuing status. Curiously, given the way evidence works, this is entirely compatible with Konkvistador's claim and also with the interpretation he suggests many will have.

As an example consider p(has this trait) raising from 0.001 to 0.01. It would still be most likely that this was a status move but there has been an update in favor of "has this trait".

Terminal vs. Instrumental valuing something is a tricky distinction to make in humans! I have to shrug and say I don't know.

Not seeming to care about status on the other hand is quite easy to detect. The argument wouldn't have shown much optimization for making the author look high status. For example an opportunity to talk about positive traits the author has may be passed up.

Also note I wasn't claiming the paragraph was evidence, just that it would be seen as a status grab. It is after all status raising if taken as an accurate description of a person in our community.

I had genuinely not considered that it would ACTUALLY raise my status to make that claim. This was originally written for a more mainstream audience, where that claim would (I presume) be low status. A friend of mine even commented in a bit of shock that this wasn't an obvious fact of the world to me.

I find it amusing that my accidental status grab has been subverted by you, and turned in to a potential loss of status :)

A confession of socially inappropriate/immoral behaviour.

Try replacing the word "status" with the word "respect" in this post.

Hmmm, interesting. But my boss has more status than me even if no one respects him, neh? I've certainly had jobs where none of the underlings respected our boss.

Yes, that's the point. Most humans do not care about status, they care about respect, admiration, love, etc. There are very few people on this earth whose goal is to lord it over other people.

You just scavenged an antelope carcass. You're slightly hungry, but nothing that can't be fixed by gathering a few berries. You have one of three options:

-Eat it all yourself.

-Give it to Mark, who's hungry and has three hungry kids

-Give it to Stacey, who's not in any particular need.

Option 1 - Everyone sort of dislikes you now. One of Mark's children dies of starvation. People do not share their resources with you anymore.

Option 2 - Mark is super grateful*4, and Stacey is mildly impressed by your generosity. Mark is willing to help you in the future. One of his children provides one of your children with a mate.

Option 3 - Mark really hates you now. Stacey is mildly grateful. Being smarter than you, she gives the carcass to mark, who is supergrateful*4 to her and willing to help her out in the future. One of his children provide one of her children with a mate.

That simple, obvious (to you, a human with a giant social brain) decision to give the antelope carcass to Mark creates a significant evolutionary pay-off. Evolution insures that you will do this action by programming you to get warm fuzzy hedons as a result of Mark's look of gratitude when you hand him the carcass.

Did you just gain status and possibly a hint of dominance over everyone involved? Sure. But, when I first posed the question, where you scheming about the expected payoff at the end? Probably not.

These mechanisms might have ultimately evolved because of the dominance and status effects, or because of the altruism related effects. But that doesn't mean status seeking was at the end of your utility function!

By the way, Mark was using "politics" too. Your families are linked now, to the mutual benefit of all, and he isn't indebted to you for your previous generosity anymore because your interests are now linked. But that wasn't at the end of his utility function either - he just likes you because you shared resources with him.

The key thing to recognize is that "manipulating" another person is usually not about getting the upper hand over them. It's just about maximizing your interest. Ignore the sociopathic overtones of the words used to describe the actions of selfish genes ... this thing you call "Status seeking" describes empathy and respect and everything we care about in humanity.

This is said often, but it just needs to be said again: Be careful with the amateur evolutionary psychology Just So Stories. They sound nice, but unless you are someone who deeply knows current evolutionary psychology research, you are basically making stuff up. Maybe guided making stuff up, but it is still a mistake to think that a stories like that explains much. The proof of its weakness is that it does not rule out anything much, as it is possible to invent a plausible sounding EvPsyc story to explain just about anything, true or false.

That said, in this particular case, you are not saying anything too radical, and I do not really object to the content of your post. But in general, this is a failure mode to be aware of, and to look out for and avoid doing.

You're right of course, but it couldn't be helped. The premise of the main post under discussion is "human intelligence evolved so that we could outwit one another, and therefore status seeking is a terminal value for most humans". There are so many evo-psych leaps in that sentence that I couldn't figure out how to even approach the topic without making a few leaps of my own. Maybe that was the wrong way to go about it, but I would like to think that lesswrongers implicitly understand these caveats whenever evo-psych is discussed.

Admittedly, my real justification for not believing that status seeking is a terminal value has got nothing to do with evolution. It's just that I know many people who behave in ways that would imply that status is not a high priority for them. Despite evolution not providing any positive evidence for my belief, I can see that my belief at the very least doesn't clash with my model of how evolution works, so I just put the two together to illustrate this lack-of-clashing.

I suppose that this would border on what people here term "dark arts", had I done this self consciously, since there was a discrepancy between the evidence which justified my belief and the arguments which I used to justified the claim.

The point I was trying to make (and should have stated more succinctly) is that the idea that intelligence arouse as part of runaway arms-race selection does not necessarily imply that humans must be very status seeking. Generating an alternative narrative to counter the proposed narrative was perhaps not the best method of getting that point across.

Possibly.

(Did said boss's superiors have a good opinion of him? Dilbert's "Pointy-Haired Boss" is good at exactly one thing - looking good to his own bosses, which is the motivation for some of his more ridiculous decisions.)

How do you gain knowledge of other people's terminal values, or even your own?

I don't believe status is my terminal value. I don't think it's a value at all. I think it's a useful umbrella term for all the lower level optimization processes that the blind idiot god decided to throw in.

Do you not value praise or criticism? Do you not care if you're useful to others? Do you not care if you get to delegate instead of DIY? Do you not care if you get to choose your sexual partners? Etc...

I cautiously suggest some of these hint at the actual terminal values under the umbrella.

I wish I could say that I don't value status. But whom would I be kidding. It gives me warm fuzzies when people I value appreciate and respect me. My guess is that this trait is mostly innate, rather then acquired.

I wish I could say that I don't value status. But whom would I be kidding. It gives me warm fuzzies when people I value appreciate and respect me.

Me too, but...

My guess is that this trait is mostly innate, rather then acquired.

I'm pretty sure I didn't use to be like that. As far as I can tell (though my introspection is far from perfect), I started off as a nerd who didn't care about status at all (either instrumentally or terminally), then realized status is instrumentally useful, started to pursue it, and eventually find myself getting warm fuzzies from it. A subgoal stomp has occurred.

Also...

people I value

There are plenty of people who care about what other people whom they don't know and who aren't likely to ever non-trivially interact with them think of them; whereas I don't give a damn (either instrumentally or terminally) what strangers think, except insofar as they might become non-strangers.

EDIT: Note that I might be have a different view of status than most people here. For example, many say that status is zero-sum by definition, but if status is something like “one's value as an ally” (and/or stuff that correlated with that in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness), not only can't I see why that would be zero-sum, but I'd also actually prefer other people to be high-status than low-status all other things being equal.

I wish I could say that I don't value status

Would you feel better if you could suppress low status emotions like sympathy for people who are sexually attracted to children or animals? Or if you could feel okay never shaving or buying new clothes?

I'm not even sure people want to want to not care about status.

I think politics is a good word here, because status and politics are not quite the same.

It was apparent to me long ago that there was a social competition going on, much of which I had no interest in and found annoying, but I've seen that it has effects on me that I shouldn't ignore. It's a zero sum social war, but the bullets are real.

I'd rather spend time with people who competed for status by production of some good or excellence in truth, as opposed to disinformation and in group jockeying used to tear people down. How do I better arrange that?

It means everything I'd pieced together about people is utterly, utterly wrong, because it assumed that they all valued truth, and understanding - the pursuits of intelligence when you don't have the political trait.

No, people don't all value that. And the news gets worse - it appears to me that people who believe in epistemic truth lose to people who believe in social truth; that not surprisingly, people who believe in social truth have a social advantage.

Status perceptions are tricksy things

It seems to me that a lot of people read status moves into just about every action. The way that a lot of people define it is not to define it at all - everything becomes connected with status. If you behave in just about any way at all, it will be perceived as desired or undesired, and that gets added into the status evaluation. The way some people use it, it's like they're trying to create the ultimate hasty generalization.

Considering the all-encompassing nature of status perceptions, I don't see a way to invalidate them, so I hope that anyone reading status into this discussion post is thinking "If I can't think of a way to invalidate my perceptions through testing, might my perceptions of status-seeking work exactly like the Barnum effect - I paint status seeking perceptions with such a wide brush that everybody qualifies as status-seeking by my definition?"

If you claim not to be motivated by status, you will have difficulty finding anything to say or do that escapes other's status evaluations for that reason.

There are incentives, as well, for others to read status moves into your actions. If most of the group is evaluating your status, and someone is competing with you for status, this someone has to alter the group's opinions of their own status relative to yours. Failing to evaluate your status would leave them at a disadvantage. More importantly, not believing that you're actively seeking status would put them at a further disadvantage by preventing them from trying to predict what status moves you will make next.

How should status be defined?

Pitfalls of status perceptions:

I see a lot of people making the kinds of mistakes that are described in 37 ways words can be wrong:

5 The act of labeling something with a word, disguises a challengable inductive inference you are making.

8 Your verbal definition doesn't capture more than a tiny fraction of the category's shared characteristics, but you try to reason as if it does.

11 You ask whether something "is" or "is not" a category member but can't name the question you really want answered.

12 You treat intuitively perceived hierarchical categories like the only correct way to parse the world, without realizing that other forms of statistical inference are possible even though your brain doesn't use them.

13 You talk about categories as if they are manna fallen from the Platonic Realm

23 The existence of a neat little word prevents you from seeing the details of the thing you're trying to think about.

24 You have only one word, but there are two or more different things-in-reality, so that all the facts about them get dumped into a single undifferentiated mental bucket.

I do not see a way to create and use status perceptions that doesn't qualify as a logical fallacy, bias or "way that words can be wrong". This is the reason why I say "I don't believe in status." It's not that I don't think other people are creating status perceptions. It's that I think the status perceptions they create are irrational.

How I evaluate others without status perceptions:

I think an easier question to address in public than "Do I care about my own status?" is "Do I make status evaluations of others?" and this is relevant because if you don't care about status, you theoretically shouldn't evaluate others that way, either. Here is how I evaluate people without using status:

People are systems and they're out there interacting in a system. They are not just little bundles of traits, so it makes no sense to me to lump all of these traits together into a status evaluation (committing mistakes #5, #8 and/or #24) and rank everyone in a hierarchical organization scheme (committing mistake #12). If I want a person in my life for some purpose (lover, friend, etc.) my question is not "Which options are high status?" but "What interactions do I want to have with the chosen person and which specific traits are necessary for that?" (Avoiding mistake #11).

Essentially, I create specific questions to answer, break my perceptions down into component parts and consider how the traits of the person will play out in context in terms of cause and effect. This is the only way to get the specifics of my social needs fulfilled and it helps me avoid the halo effect.

Ranking people by status looks about as useful to me as guessing the teacher's password is for answering questions about how things work.

Understanding the cause and effect is also how I go about understanding myself. Other people's perceptions of me have little to no influence on my ideas about myself because my ideas about myself are far more complex and detailed than theirs are. This is how I ended up caring so little about what others think of me.

Speaking from a male perspective, I view status as an instrumental value for sex. You say in the comment below (above?) that a terminal value is so when you trade other values for it: do you see often men exchanging sex for status? I think status remains an instrumental value because underneath every calculation there's the question: "If I do this, I'll have access to more females". Also I'm not surprised that as a female you're not concerned with status (besides some very rare alpha females, aka queen bees, females don't). So:
a) I don't value status --> meh, not surprising said from a female human (which usually competes for attention, not status)
b) other people do value status terminally --> I doubt it, I think status is instrumental for sex
c) I assumed they all value truth and understanding --> Haha, I pity you :p

A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex -> status. Ditto just committing to "no sex before marriage" or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.

c) Yeah, I deserve that :)

A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex -> status

Yes, it is.

Ditto just committing to "no sex before marriage" or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.

That's true only if you actually have liberal access to as much sex as you want, which usually is not the way most males perceive themselves. No sex before marriage is just a way to sacrifice a little of sex now to a (presumable) lot of sex later.

It means everything I'd pieced together about people is utterly, utterly wrong, because it assumed that they all valued truth, and understanding

Can't a person value status and truth and understanding?

Yes, but my anecdotal experience is that people who have both Knowledge AND Status as "terminal" values is fairly rare I'd assume there's also people who value neither :)

I would think that status-seeking behaviors would be more overt than truth-seeking and thus easier to identify in others.

Data point: I value both.

Phil Goetz had a nice post about how status makes FAI difficult:

Now imagine two friendly AIs, one non-positional and one positional.

The non-positional FAI has a tough task. It wants to give everyone what it imagines they want.

But the positional FAI has an impossible task. It wants to give everyone what it is that it thinks they value, which is to be considered better than other people, or at least better than other people of the same sex. But it's a zero-sum value.

Taking an acting class may do interesting things to the way you value status. Based on my limited experience, having everyone in the class play low and high status roles can create a highly compassionate, cooperative, and egalitarian environment.

Actually, what you may wonder is whether utility of increased status just has a complex shape for you.

For example, I can imagine some situation of having too little status, but in most cases I get what is enough personally for me before even trying.

H: Person x has no desire for status

E: Person x writes a post about how she's unlike most other people.

You already assigned P(H) as 0.1 (or quite possibly lower). Now you only need to estimate P(E|H) and P(E|~H), plug it all into Bayes rule, and you'll see why people are not really buying it. It doesn't mean you're wrong - it's just unlikely that you're right.