Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
steveBK123
pclmulqdq
I think there's a bit of an idea now that you should be expressing yourself with your money, not expressing society's ideas. Around cars and watches, this creates a little bit of a "dead zone" for prestigious professionals.
For example, if you aren't showing up in a $200k Maserati, your car had better be under $50k (maybe $70k with inflation). Only posers who aren't really into cars but want to show off their wealth spend $120k on a car.
For watches, the same thing happens: if you're wearing a watch less than $50k, it had better be under $500. Otherwise you probably don't care much about watches.
Clothing seems to be the same at many companies: you had better wear tailored suits and shirts or be less dressy than "business casual."
steveBK123
Yes this is very well put, you really hit the nail on the head here on the sort of reverse bell curve of signaling..
For the very wealthy.. If you show enough interest in something to make signaling purchases, it's expected to be "up to snuff" .. this can mean very very high expense or high esotericness.
So that might mean a $200k sports car, or it might mean some uncommon though inexpensive limited production vintage vehicle even though it may be of reasonable price, the time & effort you took to acquire & maintain it is a signal of taste.
Otherwise you'd be better off signaling complete disinterest with a very vanilla middle of the road options.
On menswear I think to your example, you could say you'd be better off not wearing a suit than in wearing a $200 Men's Wearhouse suit. To that end, these days, the type of people you tend to see in suits are either security / front desk staff or very senior corporate executives. Those in the middle have enough labor negotiating power to not be required to wear a suit, but probably not the desire/wealth to spend $2k on a properly tailored suit.
SoftTalker
Very senior/wealthy people can get away with whatever they want. It's why Zuckerberg can look like a total slob at Facebook (notice he still wore a suit while testifying to Congress though).
If a senior executive wore a $200 suit to work, nobody would say a word.
thelittleone
I had a business associate point out once how my mont blanc watch didn't have its own movement.
Singapore is an interesting place in this regard. We had several young guys in our office who wore $10k plus watches while still living with their parents.
bloodyplonker22
There is a chance he was trying to help you and not be condescending to you. I am not a watch person, but even I know that Mont Blanc, kind of like Beats Audio, is not really known for their fine craftsmanship in watches. They're more about marketing, like Beats.
__turbobrew__
In my experience East Asian culture prioritizes having nice clothes, nice cars, and nice jewelry over having a nice home.
Other buy a home well beyond their needs but drive a honda shitbox and wear old navy (me).
manigandham
Having plenty of experience in both the car and watch worlds, what you're saying is somewhat true but it's based on brands, models and exclusivity rather than the price (which is a derivative of those factors).
It's knowing which car or watch to buy, and also recognizing it on others, that acts as the signal.
vintermann
This rings true to me. My hobbies aren't especially expensive, but in all of them there are certainly ways to spend money that would tell me that you don't "get it". "It" being what I find interesting about the hobby. Not that it's necessarily worse or that I want to pass judgment on it, just that the connection isn't there.
But I wonder, in cultures very different from mine, which we generally see as more status-competitive, is that also true? Is it a faux pas to buy an expensive gold chain over a "proper" one?
tptacek
Where is this place where showing up in a Porsche 911 outs you as a car dilettante because you didn't shell out an extra $90k for the Maserati? I think the status symbols there might be reversed.
projectazorian
If anything it's driving the Maserati that outs someone as a dilletante. Possibly the worst value for money of any luxury car brand.
pclmulqdq
I'm not a car person, but I think showing up in a 911 is okay, but showing up in a random Mercedes is not. Other commenters have pointed out that a Maserati is also not a great brand to be driving, despite the price.
elevaet
The "uncanny valley" of wealth display.
SamReidHughes
That's not really the case with watches.
vineyardmike
> Clothing seems to be the same at many companies: you had better wear tailored suits and shirts or be less dressy than "business casual."
There’s a running joke in my circle about the “dad professional class”. People who are older (40-60s) and go to the office in a remote-work-accepting world mostly because they seem to want to leave their family at home. They all dress like shit in ill-fitting clothes, but because they’re older than the “office casual” dress code, they tend to dress in overly professional button downs and slacks. The business attire that look out of place in tech next to a 25yo in a tee shirt. They don’t seem to know people don’t always take them seriously, and think “they’re not here to [change the world/be the best/rise in the ranks/etc], they’re here to avoid their wife and collect a salary”.
TLDR: stop telling people you try to avoid your family, and start tailoring your clothes, it’s honestly not expensive.
cafard
Or maybe by their 40s-60s they have lost all interest in what 25yos, tee-shirted or not, think about their attire. They have seen the fashion wheel spin more than once, and are no longer compelled by it.
(Source: upper 60s, go into the office mostly because a) it's not far, b) my office setup is a bit better, c) I don't want to wake my wife with Zoom calls. I do have some tailored shirts but seldom wear them.)
brendamn
I’d be careful making assumptions about a group of people like you’ve done here. I’m not quite old enough to be in the “dad professional class”, but I’ve been around long enough to have worked with plenty of people who are. In my experience, the people who dress “like shit in ill-fitting [overly professional button downs and slacks]” have been dressing like that for at least the last 20 years, and that it was common (at least in IT/development) to dress like that.
Tech workers dressing casually at the office is only a (relevantly) recent phenomenon. Working from home, for a lot of people, is even more recent.
You’ve made a lot of assumptions, and I would consider that this group of people are just defaulting back to what they’re used to, rather than “avoid their wife and collect a salary”.
I don’t know where you work, what industry, or the demographics of who works there, but if “people [who work there] don’t always take them seriously”, and it’s based on older people dressing like older people, then there is a culture problem.
projectazorian
If people like that dressed like you, you'd probably be laughing at them even harder and sending around the Steve Buscemi "how do you do, fellow kids?" meme in the group chat.
The problem is with you, I'm afraid.
nobodyandproud
> There’s a running joke in my circle about the “dad professional class”. People who are older (40-60s)
I fit this demographic.
> and go to the office in a remote-work-accepting world mostly because they seem to want to leave their family at home.
There’s some truth to this, though I’ve avoiding coming in. It’s not about escaping the family but just a change of scenery.
> They all dress like shit in ill-fitting clothes, but because they’re older than the “office casual” dress code, they tend to dress in overly professional button downs and slacks.
I have a reasonable taste in fashion, but my cost-conscious self doesn’t allow it.
Age also forces a more conservative style and colors; and it says I’m sacrificing for the kids.
> “The business attire that look out of place in tech next to a 25yo in a tee shirt.
Business attire is like a uniform. You don’t need to spend a lot to look presentable.
> They don’t seem to know people don’t always take them seriously,
Is this a bad thing?
> and think “they’re not here to [change the world/be the best/rise in the ranks/etc], they’re here to avoid their wife and collect a salary”.
Rise in the ranks?
There’s nothing wrong with working to live. You get my best for 8 to 9 hours.
We live in a world where “leadership” is valued, and everything else is devalued. For engineers, this is purgatory.
Like, it’s a huge mental and emotional burden and I’d gladly take a 1/3 paycut to be an IC; except nobody else really wants it.
kashunstva
> They don’t seem to know people don’t always take them seriously
Because of their clothing? All other things being equal, of what possible objective value could fashion conformity hold?
astrange
I think the idea you should get your clothes tailored is just foreign to them. Uniqlo is the only brand that offers it in the US at mall clothes prices.
steveBK123
Agism, not cool.
undefined
DyslexicAtheist
> re: the modern upper class that wearing a $2k Rolex or driving a $70k BMW is frowned upon.
always has been moon meme.
unless you're neveaux rich or stupid or both it is in your absolute interest not to show what you have. driving a Prius used to be that signal but today it has shifted. My direct boss was a Schenker heir (the freight forwarding company) and the only way he showed off is by living in a rental house (albeit manged by his management company so he essentially paid rent to himself), drove a Nissan, didn't spend unless you took a closer look (art purchases for his 4th wife) didn't brag with fancy dinners in Michelin star places (but certainly bragged to his wife about putting her on the map with her silly paintings as a wannabe artist - lol "Sex rules everything around me C.R.E.A.M get the money").
Only lower ranks criminals and new-rich idiots show what they have. Everyone else has learned the lesson: if you show it (the plebs and the IRS), they'll come for you.
Also all the people who're truly rich do NOT play by the same rules as the rest of you. YOU decide where, and how much tax you pay, if you have the cash to pay lawyers and accountants to insulate you from the Plebs.
The US is the biggest tax[1] haven in the world today forget the Hollywood propaganda about Cayman or Panama - only idiot cartels and Victor Bout use these jurisdictions but not the white collar crime lords ...
Alex3917
> driving a Prius used to be that signal but today it has shifted
The new 5th generation that just came out looks amazing, so it wouldn't surprise me if Priuses eventually become trendy again.
thiht
> neveaux rich
nouveau riche, or nouveaux riches
Sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but as a French, I couldn't resist :D
DyslexicAtheist
pas de soucis, absolutely fair point :D
onetimeusename
Rolex hatred seems like it is about expressing contempt towards the previous establishment. Presidents used to wear them (still do actually) but it's not uncommon to see very rich politicians wearing very cheap watches probably deliberately. Same goes for suit wearing.
I think pg wrote an article on his blog about how suit wearing was for people who thought like conformists and obviously being a conformist was not for hackers. I am paraphrasing because I can't remember now exactly what he said. But I just think it was contempt of previously established people working in finance or law. Now, the largest companies in the US skew towards tech companies.
I don't know why that happens that newly successful people seem to dislike the symbols of the previous elite rather than just mind their own business. Wearing a suit to a tech company will probably get you ostracized even if you just like wearing suits. This is in spite of the claim that the hoodie culture is not concerned what you dress up in, in fact they are. Maybe you could call that counter counter-signalling. It's just like taking a large salary at a tech company instead of having a $1 salary and getting enormous options and stock payouts. Somehow taking a large salary is worse despite that being normal for CEOs previously.
pfisherman
> Wearing a suit to a tech company will probably get you ostracized even if you just like wearing suits.
Not true. If you are a menswear enthusiast who is genuinely into fine tailoring, then people will respect it and even show interest. Generally, having hobbies and interests adds to one’s character. Now wearing a suit because you think it will make people take you more seriously will get you some side eye.
LAC-Tech
Which is a shame. Someone wearing business casual is so much more pleasant to the eye than typical sloppy hacker wear. Especially once you start getting older and flabbier.
onetimeusename
maybe. I'd like to think that is true but was not in my experience but I wish I had experimented more before everything went remote so maybe take what I am saying with a grain of salt on this matter. I definitely took shit for it although some people were fascinated. I think the exception is if you have long hair or are a steampunk enthusiast. I am not really kidding. Even then you might come off as odd.
I sometimes would have to go to nearby tech companies we worked with and the leads who would greet me would mention something like "oh sorry we didn't tell you that you don't have to wear a suit". You have to explain yourself and there is the implication that wearing a suit is somehow inappropriate.
lazide
Interestingly, the $1 salary (with large equity) gives you massive flexibility in how and when you get taxed, and also a lot of additional negotiating power and flexibility with ex-wives (and the Court) on child support and alimony, at least in California.
chrisbolt
Courts are oblivious to equity and other non-salary compensation?
kevinventullo
I’ve never understood where this meme came from of hoodie culture having some kind of disdain for suits. I enjoy a nice suit when the time calls for it! Say, a wedding or a holiday party.
The reason I prefer a hoodie to suit on a daily basis is that putting on a suit is kind of arduous and owning 20 well-fitting suits gets expensive. It has nothing to do with signaling or whatever. Hoodies are far more practical and comfortable! They’re a continuation of what I wore in high school and college, though sadly the skateboard logos have been replaced by tech company logos.
Anyway, if you want to wear a suit, that’s fine, just don’t expect it from me.
astrange
It’s real, but I think the anti-suit culture has less of a point when tech has been ascendant so long.
https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-were-apple-we-don...
Also, I think it was originally because the west coast is warm all year.
cracrecry
>the modern upper class that wearing a $2k Rolex or driving a $70k BMW is frowned upon.
There was a time, not that long time ago in which good clocks were expensive and expending 2ks on a good clock was similar to expending 2k on a laptop today, a functional, reasonable decision.
My uncle earned a much more expensive Rolex than 2k in a Golf tournament and wearing it nobody believed it was genuine, even a watchmaker could not differentiate it from sight, there are very good Chinese knockoffs for cheap anywhere.
Also, after quartz oscillator clocks, a 2k clock does not work better than a 100 one.
People spend their money on whatever they see fit. One of the great things of having money is having freedom in your life but few people knowing that you have it.
In places like Spain or France people do not admire you for having money, on the contrary they envy you, and you better not show off. Also gold diggers and interested parties like banks start to harass you all the time. And criminals what to take it from you by force.
tetris11
Is it envy, or disgust? If someone tells me they live in a castle, my initial instinct isn't "wow I wish in a castle too", but "wow what a wasteful needless thing to brag about".
i0null
Be cautious, the word "envy" is typically thrown around by folks that want to justify "greed". OC, there are reasonable scales between the two but equating success to having nicer material things is really a subjective value judgement.
In all honesty the salient points in the OP about judging instead of thinking, is a commonly attributed aphorism to Carl Jung yet there is no reference to it. The point about tardiness and drawbacks this apparently has on socialising and career progression comes across as utilitarian to the point of sounding sociopathic.
g42gregory
Last time the lowest-end Rolex was $2k was probably 30 years ago. :-)
taeric
I'm going to make the assertion that personal clocks were basically never with that much. They were as functionally useful as a gold bracelet for the best majority of owners.
wolverine876
> In places like Spain or France people do not admire you for having money, on the contrary they envy you, and you better not show off. Also gold diggers and interested parties like banks start to harass you all the time. And criminals what to take it from you by force.
You're saying that wealthy people in France and Spain don't show it, and if they do they are commonly robbed?
pvaldes
> In places like Spain or France people do not admire you for having money, on the contrary they envy you
Or maybe not. You mileage may vary.
This would depend a lot on how do you earned it.
trasz2
Technically a Rolex, however expensive, will always be much worse as a watch than a 20$ Casio. But recently there's another aspect to this: there are now watches that are technically (mechanically) identical to rolexes. Same design, same mechanics, virtually impossible to tell the difference when you tear it apart. Rolex has always been more about marketing (artificial scarcity, waiting list etc) than mechanics, but now it's pretty much exclusively about marketing, since you can get the same engineering orders of magnitude cheaper. It's like DeBeers' diamonds.
steveBK123
Correct, a G-shock would get the job done better.
I always viewed watches as the only mainstream sociable acceptable form of male jewelry.
And regardless of which model, generally no more expensive than a woman's engagement or wedding ring, and actually usually cheaper.
Plus it does something other than look pretty - tells time & date!
vba616
Somewhere I read that a Rolex has a very practical purpose - a real one is a commodity that can fairly easily be turned into cash or a bribe in an emergency, but as a watch, it's not susceptible to being seized by authorities in many circumstances where cash or gold might be.
I don't know if this is true, but it makes a good story.
ROTMetro
I have a more obscure watch, but one that those that care recognize. It has signaled me as part of the 'correct' crowd more than once and definitely done it's purpose.
moneywoes
Where can one get those similar Rolex’s? For science
fnbr
What’s an example of a watch that’s mechanically identical to a Rolex?
AlbertCory
I bought a fake "Rolex" in Thailand, for $10.
It actually didn't work very well. I guess there's a hierarchy even among the fake.
PaulHoule
Back in the 1990s my dad's oldest brother went to the outskirts of NYC and was really impressed with the fake "Rolex" he bought. My mom was indignant about it because she sold men's clothing for a living and could tell you exactly how a fake Tommy Hilfiger shirt was worse in so many ways than a real one.
Two weeks later the watch stopped running.
Around the same time, though, my mom's youngest brother was driving on the cross-Bronx throughway, stopped to help somebody whose car was pulled over on the side of the road, and found the driver had been shot dead.
mozman
I bought a $400 fake rolex. Aside from the glass not being sapphire you cannot tell the difference visually
helen___keller
> wearing a $2k Rolex or driving a $70k BMW is frowned upon. But instead they have eccentric "hobbies" requiring $10ks of of equipment, inclusive of "needing" $10k viking stove/range, and $10k subzero fridge/freezer in your kitchen because you are a "foodie" […]
Isn’t this conflating status signal with lifestyle?
The wealthy have always enjoyed expensive lifestyles and hobbies. In and of itself, expensive hobby equipment is not a status signal (it can be, of course, if you plaster it all over your personal social media)
idiocrat
> The wealthy have always enjoyed expensive lifestyles and hobbies.
Sorry to jump in.
There is a 2003 documentary by the name "Born Rich".
This is about the children from the wealthy people and how they are coping with the boredom of being able (afford) to do anything.
Many are naturally isolated and invent obscure hobbies and life-styles not fitting their "wealthy statuses".
Not sure how it is changing in more responsible adulthood, when it is becoming their turn to manage the estate. I guess this is then mostly about turf-wars among relatives.
(edit: formatting)
BarryMilo
> This is about the children from the wealthy people and how they are coping with the boredom of being able (afford) to do anything.
See also the excellent Korean documentary "Squid Game"!
yourapostasy
> ...coping with the boredom of being able (afford) to do anything.
That’s mostly a lack of sufficient education and rearing to arm them with enough knowledge and grit to choose and tackle from an infinite number of problems to advance towards a possible solution. Most of those problems don’t take generational wealth scale money to make a dent into, but a tremendous amount of hard work for years and even decades without expectations of acclaim commensurate with their generational wealth background.
Which points out the other problem: most of them want (or are pushed since childhood to want) the acclaim accrued by their inherited wealth also attached to their efforts in whatever direction they choose. It’s why we get the dilettante phenomenon among them so much.
Tightly coupling wealth to accomplishment across generations is possibly a very leaky abstraction.
steveBK123
For example I would contrast the following three scenarios of people in my circle.
* Having professional landscapers plant grass and plants on an outdoor terrace of a penthouse apartment for $100k
* Growing a large vegetable garden from seeds & seedlings, from your vacation home outside the city
* Raising houseplants in your apartment windowsill
All three of these people may describe themselves as having green thumbs or being into gardening as a hobby...
PaulHoule
I am into collecting slightly obsolete audio gear, I've spent maybe $600 on the hobby in the last six months.
I know some people would think $120 is a lot for a minidisc player since you can get a flash player for so much less. Other people would think it's a trivial amount of money. Like all these things it comes in multiple scales: back in the day there were people who would spend 50x that on audio gear (there are some $20,000 speaker sets that sound great)
I don't expect to impress anybody: the last person I showed my portable minidisc player was a professor in the music department who's won one more than one Grammy award and teaches sound engineering who I ran into at the bus stop and his comment is "God, how can you listen to something compressed like that?" ("... yeah, I've been wondering about some of the coding tools they use.")
We are probably going to have some people over for a party and I don't expect many people to notice the difference with the 5.1 DTS discs I have in my CD changer but I do.
PaulHoule
There are different audiences.
I worked for a company that sold products and services to sales managers. The CEO and his wife (who was also an owner of the company) lived in a house in Rochester that had the biggest kitchen I'd ever seen anyone actually use. We would have holiday parties there and it was clear cooking was a hobby they liked to but that entertaining is also a way to enjoy your status.
steveBK123
Yes I think my point is that they simply signal differently by for example regaling you about how they spent $5000 on custom designed esoteric tiles from a local artisan for their shower.
Personally I don't think things that are 90% purchase/consumption (housing/renovations/appliances) are hobbies in the same way as photography/kitesurfing/gardening/cycling which may be expensive but have some sort of skill/learning/activity attached.
browningstreet
I worked for a wealthy man.
I remember two stories among many:
He once told me he was upgrading the doorknobs and hinges in this house. The bill just for those items came to $45K.
We were both getting coffee in the office once, and he looked towards me and ask, “My socks cost more than everything you’re wearing.”
And he liked me.
closeparen
Renovation isn’t the hobby here, they’re not doing it themselves. But a passion for cooking justifies the high end kitchen. An interest in architecture and design justifies bringing good examples of it home.
undefined
Tarq0n
A sociologist would tell you that there is no such thing as a lifestyle which isn't a performance of one's status.
nostrademons
There are but it's considered a personality disorder.
There are folks that are genuinely uninterested in social status, and it usually goes along with being uninterested in social relationships. Think of autistic/Asperger's individuals; certain psychopaths & sociopaths; people with schizoid, schizotypal, avoidant, or antisocial personality disorders; et al. No relationships = no status = no need to worry about social status and social signaling.
It's much like how where there's people, there's politics. Where there's social, there's status. Take away the social and you take away both the performance and the status.
Glyptodon
I think there are some people who are fine with exhibiting themselves (and their status) as they are without it being performative.
moonchrome
Saying more about their frameworks/models/worldview than reality.
helen___keller
Sure, this is vacuously true in the sense that if you are studying peoples behavior then any lifestyle option is a data point that can be correlated across other metrics, and hence we can call any lifestyle “a performance of one’s status” for the sake of study status and lifestyles.
But that’s not really relevant. From an individuals perspective there’s a big difference between keeping up with the joneses and focusing on what makes you happy.
Even if it turns out that what makes you happy is actually still correlated to your status and you’re not really a unique snowflake.
StanislavPetrov
Reason 5,434 why sociology is a not a science.
PragmaticPulp
> But instead they have eccentric "hobbies" requiring $10ks of of equipment, inclusive of "needing" $10k viking stove/range, and $10k subzero fridge/freezer in your kitchen because you are a "foodie" and doing a $500k home Reno because you have good architectural taste and style.
Or maybe they just like to cook and enjoy having good hardware?
Not everything is for signaling purposes. It's really cynical to start viewing everyone's personal expenditures as some sort of socially manipulative tactic. This is especially true when it comes to people's hobbies, where many of us are just trying to enjoy ourselves and appreciate having good hardware around.
TaylorAlexander
When I worked at Google I always had the distinct feeling that my hard work was paying for some manager’s $500k home renovation. I’m way more interested in working hard to help people who really need it, and I’m glad I’m not working at a place like that anymore.
boringg
Where did you end up that is helping people who really need it?
TaylorAlexander
I’m doing an open source solar powered farming robot nonprofit thing! [1] It’s an amazing feeling finishing a huge PCB design project for work and then immediately pushing the changes to GitHub. I’ve got a new brushless motor controller in the works that costs under $40 per board fully assembled for high current dual motor control, and anyone can order them (ideally wait till design is slightly more mature). [2]
[1] https://community.twistedfields.com/t/march-2022-update-simu...
[2] https://github.com/Twisted-Fields/rp2040-motor-controller
coffeebeqn
The food part is big. It’s wild how in the US especially there are about three classes of grocery stores and each cater almost exclusively to a certain social class. You don’t see many laborers or fast food workers grabbing a meal from the local co-op or Whole Foods and the local Aldi or Walmart rarely sees an executive unless they’re infamously stingy
steveBK123
You see this A LOT in food spend in US especially in rich urban areas.
I have friends who would kind of scoff at a Rolex but proudly describe the latest $500-for-2 dinner they went to last week.
Similarly I had a friend who only upgraded his iPhone with hand-me-downs from his teenage daughter, so he'd be like 3-4 years behind the curve. Meanwhile he owned like 4 homes and dined out similarly to my other friend.
Melting_Harps
> You see this A LOT in food spend in US especially in rich urban areas.
This won't resonate withh you unless you are or were ever a cook, I fear we had so much more left to capture and were forced to leave on the table that was taken away because of COVID, but this transition in the US food culture was paid with lots of hard work and countless sacrifices that most will never get beyond watching an episode of The Bear.
Two big blows came in hard after Bourdain's death (so many concepts and projects were abandoned that never came back) and then followed with COVID destroying the Industry in such a way that I'm doubting will ever get much further than this in my Lifetime any more: food culture in the US still has so much left to catch up with Asia and Europe but we were making massive progress towards that, but I'm staring to accept this will probably be the high-water mark that the next generation of tech workers and cooks alike will need to build off of. And no, ghost kitchens and burning VC money from Softbank on DD is not a solution.
So far, outside of small boutique restaurants and kitchens, all I've seen is a race to the bottom profit seeking with almost no motivation other than to capture what marketshare remains from corps who benefited from PPP and ZIRP at whatever cost it takes and cutting corners until they got bought out by a large Restaurant group. This may seem like hyperbole but ~60% of all restaurants shutdown forever [0] after covid in what was already I high-failure sector with incredibly costly CAPEX/OPEX business models and low profit margins even during the best of times.
My last encounter with a delivery driver from a large vendor (think Shamrock or Sysco type corp) brought it all home: they had essentially succumb to the same exploitative delivery and monitoring systems that an Amazon delivery driver has, which was a stark contrast to getting deliveries from local farmers for produce/protein ha were the highlight of the menu and accompanied with items from small artisans and purveyors for cheeses, deserts breads etc...
We've lost something very vital coming out of COVID, and I'm not sure what can be done to not undo the progress that was made since the culture-shift has swung so hard to this Amazonification of this Industry.
gus_massa
> If a chimpanzee views a person perform a series of superfluous actions, along with one single necessary action, in order to obtain a piece of food, the chimpanzee will skip the superfluous action, and perform only the necessary one.
> In contrast, children will copy every single action, including the unnecessary ones.
I watched the video, but I'm unconvinced. They tell the kid the box is "magic". Children know the box is not magic. Children know how spells work in cartoon and books. So "magic" is a code word for "please copy all the silly steps as accurate as possible".
The apes have no instruction, so they don't understand the must copy all the silly steps.
I'll also blame school. Children are expected and trained to follow orders of adults even if they don't understand them, because it will be better for them in the future. Did you ever played basketball? Why should you put the ball in the basket if it has a hole in the bottom and the ball will fall down?
Nemi
I agree. The nature of our verbal communication is that they were implying to the children that this is a game and that they must copy each step. In contrast, had they said “your goal is to get the gummy bear. Do only those things necessary to get the treat” it would have gone much differently.
Even by not using ANY words and only having then children watch a person and then leaving them alone with the contraption would have gone differently. Some would likely have “played the game” because that is what we teach children. But at least some would have likely just gone for the treat.
In any case, it is an interesting thing to ponder!
burlesona
I also wondered about the difference between doing this with young children and adult chimps.
I think it’s fairly obvious that if you gave the clear box test to a teenager or adult and said “get the treat out” they’d look at you funny and then many or most would just reach in and grab it. I think even in the black box, they’d probably look at it real hard and maybe try going straight for the treat after investigating the box a bit.
By contrast very young humans operate in “game mode” almost all the time, and are basically “playing along” with whatever game you put them in. It’s a lot of fun, and often silly.
So my question is, what about juvenile chimps? Do they also operate in game mode, or would they follow the adult chimp behavior of going straight for the reward?
jterwill
They have tried this with juvenile non-human primates! For example, Horner & Whiten (2005) tried this with 2-6 year old chimpanzees. Clay & Tennie (2017) tried this with juvenile bonobos. Neither group overimitated. They do play, but overimitation is probably underpinned by the ability/proclivity to infer Gricean intentions, which non-human primates lack.
There is a strong normative element to this, as well as the play element you mentioned — I expect, as adults, we’ve all engaged in some form of overimitation as an act of conformity.
blagie
Yeah.
(1) It was presented as a game. It seemed like a game.
(2) People like ritual. This was clearly ritual.
yarg
Anecdotally, some human kids don't like being tested and will deliberately fuck with a researcher.
(I don't remember this, my mother was hidden behind a one way mirror.)
I had some pretty severe co-ordination issues as a child, no learning related problems - but fuck knows who decided that I needed to be evaluated on both fronts.
Anyway this woman comes in to test me with one of those boxes with different shaped holes in the top, and a matching block for each hole.
I grab a random block and try to shove it in a hole into which it obviously does not fit - and keep trying with the same hole until the woman gets up and leaves in frustration (she'd been trying to hint that I should perhaps try another hole).
The moment she left I quickly solved the puzzle.
_dain_
>Children know the box is not magic.
are you sure about that?
sircastor
It’s important to clarify this question. Children, especially young children, do not have a clear view of what is real and What is not real. The line is different for everyone, but I’d say at 7 or 8 that starts to come into focus. Even then, there are plenty of grown, intelligent adults who believe things without any substantial evidence.
I will say that kids are way smarter than we often give them credit for. They’re natural scientists, and I think we probably educate that kind of learning out of them.
gus_massa
In that case, I'll "rewrite" my comment:
modified quote> I watched the video, but I'm unconvinced. They tell the kid the box is "magic". Children now know the box IS magic. Children know how spells work in cartoon and books. So "magic" is a code word for "please copy all the silly steps as accurate as possible".
The main problem is that humans and chips get different instructions.
BiteCode_dev
In the same vein:
- Don't hide your mistakes
- Show that you are vulnerable
- Be yourself
Are all things that work best when you are (contextually) high-status.
Yet we are still culturally promoting them as the things we should all strive for in any situation.
However, it's way easier to be open about my professional mistakes now that I'm recognized by my peers and that I don't do too many of them.
It's simple to expose my vulnerabilities now that I've built a social network that will not hurt me with it because they like and respect me.
And it's certainly great to be able to be myself, now that people around me will say I'm eccentric, and not reject me.
It's like the behavior of men in romantic comedy. If you were to be ugly and awkward, doing what they do would get you arrested. You don't get to play "50 shades" or "twilight" if you are the hunchback of Notredame. It's also why energy, humour and culture are such great assets, allowing you to somewhat help with social status.
One day maybe we will stop selling to our children that life is about this one thing that works in all cases, and admit each life advice is highly contextual.
justusw
Agreed. Admitting mistakes and showing vulnerability works best when you have nothing to lose, not because you have nothing but because you are untouchable. A good example would be a CEO who neither takes a pay cut nor resigns after laying off 20 % of their workforce. It is usually accompanied by a press release saying that they have seen the errors in their way, but as a consequence other heads have to roll, mine still stays attached (and then blame inflation or something). An upside down world, really.
pavlov
> “Some writers are so well known that, despite having millions of followers, they literally don’t promote anything they write on social media. That is some strong countersignaling.”
This was every writer until about 13 years ago. That’s not a long time in a field where people can have 70 year long careers.
It’s interesting to consider how “doing the thing I’ve always done” can quickly become seen as countersignalling when society changes around you.
jonnycomputer
Yeah, and I don't think its counter-signalling either. Successful authors are likely to have people actively promoting their work for them; the one thing others can't do for them is write (unless they're willing to have other people perform the work they are known for).
tgv
It's seems to be hard for people to imagine there are more channels than Twitter. They are on twitter, everybody they know is on twitter, and by that they judge everything.
zach_garwood
And people on Twitter vastly overestimate Twitter's importance. That some people think it's a "public town square" is just laughable. It's the trash-laden alley behind an Arby's, at best.
GauntletWizard
"Tweeting, but not tweeting about your new book" is very different from "Not tweeting about your new book" when Twitter doesn't exist. One is lack of a signal channel, the other is spending time and effort on a signal channel and not transmitting your signal. Countersignaling relies on the SNR being biased against you; it's about noise floor vs signal and having no channel at all is very different.
usrusr
But how is "I can get by very well without that newfangled thing" not countersignaling? Even if it's completely devoid of deliberation it still is. And from the upstart's perspective this is written for, they can certainly try to cosplay grey eminence from the start, but that sure has its price. If they succeed nonetheless, good for them, but telling them to try would be bad advice.
YurgenJurgensen
This could still be a conscious choice to counter-signal though. When society is changing, you can go with the flow or you can choose to stick to your guns, and if your position is solid enough, maybe you don't need to be on the front of every trend. Of course, like all the risky signals, you don't know if your position is actually strong enough until it's too late.
motohagiography
Not going to university or dropping out of it is the most expensive countersignal of all, and it also knocks away the ladder for people who might try to follow you into your chosen endeavour.
I've been articulating this dynamic for a long time and tell anyone who thinks I am an example that it's a terrible example to follow - mostly because the countersignals become the signal, as really, if you really want to prove how smart you are, go win a Fields medal, or perhaps you have a cancer cure to help my friend, or maybe you can make something somebody else actually wants for a change - and if you aren't that smart, then maybe you should work less on seeming smart and more on demonstrating you are good at something and use the opportunities that come from the respect of your competence and ability to share it with others, instead of affecting the aura of brilliance at being a failed or frustrated genius. These admonishments are as much to myself as anyone else who resembles them.
Countersignals are vulgar artifacts of the 90s that a bunch of nouveau middle class people are just starting to figure out now, and they only fool rubes and are a way to figure out who to follow and how to climb socially, but never how to do something beautiful or great. I call them fart-connoisseurs because I know what it is like to be one. These days I use this quote a lot, which is, "Don't be so humble, you aren't that great."
When I'm great, I will be humble. Until then, check out how awesome my effort that yielded something objectively crappy is, and even though it's not above criticism, it did the job, which is more than brilliance ever did. Maybe that is knocking the ladder away too, but that ladder went nowhere anyway. :)
Big fan of Rob Hendersons newsletter. Recommend.
the_only_law
> Not going to university or dropping out of it is the most expensive countersignal of all
I think this was the worst mistake I’ve made to date.
motohagiography
Forgive your imagined mistakes. It was a handicap I chose and controlled, based on a very deep seated mistrust of authority, which led me to avoid taking on a small challenge that millions of other normal kids do all the time. Live and learn.
The 90's counter signal trope of success without school was as misleading as the trope you had to get a degree to amount to anything, which was contemptuous of the generations of working class families who created the culture that produced those institutions. None of it means anything so long as you own it, but it is a different life, literally, a different trajectory by degree.
randomdata
It's not a foregone conclusion. Presumably you'll want something to do in retirement.
blitzar
> Not going to university or dropping out of it is the most expensive countersignal of all
Pure survivorship bias.
If facebook flopped zuck would have been back at university after a "sabatical" and would now be middle management in a cubicle at a consulting company.
mmaunder
Wealth signaling and its effects are rather depressing. People going into debt to buy a Rolex and a sports car to create the illusion of success is bad enough. Someone falling for an individual mismanaging their own finances to create a lie is quite sad.
I was listening to a pop station yesterday and a song was playing that was like a top 5 of fashion brands, they way the singer kept listing them off. So I think elements of our culture pressure people into doing this kind of painful signaling.
I think signaling or counter signaling should be avoided if you want to preserve your sanity. Find something you’re passionate about and find others who feel the same. Hang out. Make best friends. Date. Get married. Be happy.
ricardobayes
I saw this greatly affecting Eastern European youth, who have mostly no chance of ever wearing Balenciaga or LV. But they get this image blasted 24/7 on Instagram, so they are stuck forever in a sad feedback loop.
rvba
In Soviet republics you could be murdered by the state every day, or declared an enemy of the pepople, or sent to gulag for a thing you didnt do - and all of those negative experiences ingrained a type of short-terminism among the society.
The state could take away your apartment and make you lose everyrhing apart the clothes on your back - so why bother fixing the apartment, go and buy some nice clothes... at least you look good NOW and maybe you can keep them.
This negative trainig (easy to lose everything) makes people care more about looks. With so many relatively poor people maybe it is some sort of a "lipstick effect" too - for everyone.
CyanBird
It happens everywhere, specially around lumpenproletariats around the world, it is a foul situation without an honest fix.
It Latam it leads to horrible levels of asocial behaviors, theft, drug trading to acquire money and use it to purchase luxury items with which signal success
It is heart breaking
bradlys
Good thing that Turkey has plenty of imitation goods for cheap.
TrackerFF
Buying a Rolex today or for the past few years, would have actually been a pretty solid investment - it's hard to purchase a new one, because there's usually waiting lists, and most stores prioritize their VIP clients. Used market blew up around COVID, and people have made some pretty nice returns on flipping Rolex. Hell, I have a couple of co-workers that collect watches, and they mostly just store the real-deal in their safes, and wear high-end replicas in public.
But I get your point. Unfortunately there seems to be lots of kids in the the lower socio-economic classes that spend all their money on expensive sneakers, hoodies, and other luxury brand clothes. Spending $1k on a designer hoodie, when you make $15k / year, isn't the smartest financial decision - to put it mildly.
mmaunder
Not really. You can’t buy one at the stores - massive scarcity. And the grey market have appreciation priced in. Grey prices have dropped significantly in the past few months. The crypto bubble in watches has burst.
osigurdson
Pure trash. Be yourself, emulate whoever you want (or no one). Do what feels right. If someone looks down on you for riding a bike to work (regardless of your current "status"), #1 they are idiots and their respect and admiration is worth zero and #2 choke them out :). Life is too short for such ridiculous minutia.
speakfreely
Would love to set a 10 year reminder to check in on how this life strategy has worked out.
osigurdson
Right. Wow, look at me, I now have a cushy (soul crushing) job at the city just like my slightly wealthier neighbour. All life goals checked off now.
sangnoir
I knew you were someone who could afford to "ignore" social cues. I used to think the tech-type was not like that until I observed some common threads, at lest in the Bay Area (driving an EV or planning to buy one - likely a Tesla, Patagonia vests, loves to hike, has an Apple watch)
vouaobrasil
Seems to work pretty well for me, and I'm not rich and never have been. But I've always been very happy not caring about what other people think or making an impression.
wellbehaved
Yeah. Look where this got Galileo. House arrest for the rest of his life. Bad call Galileo, you should have paid better attention to social cues! /s
CyanBird
Well... Copernicus did take a cue, he wrote his book and ideas and only published them when he was about to die (or postmortem I don't remember/can't lookup the details rn)
wellbehaved
How dare you express anything that resembles sincere courage here. Elon Musk can afford that, but if others were to follow his lead, imagine how bad that would be for Big Tech management! Who knows, they might even get fired and replaced by one of these Elon Musk "imitators". What a horrible, horrible thought. /s
ChrisMarshallNY
> In contrast, children will copy every single action, including the unnecessary ones.
The example that immediately springs to mind, in the tech industry, is the "Steve Jobs Asshole" archetype.
Steve Jobs was a notorious manager, in that he made heavy-duty demands, did not suffer fools, and was blunt to the point of abusive.
But he was also able to filter for talent, cultivate it, and encourage excellence. He wasn't just an asshole. He was really smart, driven, and impatient with things that got in his way.
I have worked with two people, in my time, who worked directly with him at one time, or another, and they both hated him, but I have also worked with a number of folks like Steve Jobs, and have learned how to navigate them. It isn't pleasant, but it's generally worth it, to get on their good side.
Unfortunately, a lot of not-so-smart, and not-so-creative people have picked up on the "demanding asshole" part, without the "smart, selective, and creative" part, so they are just assholes. They honestly believe they are channeling Steve, but they don't get the same results (for the record, Steve Jobs had a lot more failures than successes, but his successes were off the charts).
notinfuriated
The Steve Jobs example I immediately think of when talking about imitating unnecessary behaviors are all the people who started dressing like Steve Jobs. Elizabeth Holmes and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind as people who did this in an obvious way.
But the 'asshole boss' or authority figure archetype is an old one, from long before Steve Jobs, and it can be an effective motivational tool, although many of us, myself included, don't have the stomach for it. Obligatory pop culture example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elrnAl6ygeM
mike_hearn
Holmes yes, so obviously so that people remarked on it. Zuckerberg? The archetype of Steve Jobs' dress code is the black turtleneck and jeans. Zuck is famous for his consistent grey t-shirt and jeans, or sometimes hoodies.
ChrisMarshallNY
> his consistent grey t-shirt and jeans
I’m pretty sure they were talking about that consistency.
The story that I have heard, is that Jobs wore the same thing, every day, so his mind wouldn’t be “bogged down,” with minutia, like what to wear.
I think some folks also have superstitions about dress.
notinfuriated
Per my other comment, it's not the copying of the style but rather the copying of the behavior / habit:
adventured
> the people who started dressing like Steve Jobs. Elizabeth Holmes and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind as people who did this in an obvious way.
Zuckerberg was never known for copying the look of Steve Jobs. I doubt you can find multiple photos from different dates that demonstrates the claim.
Zuck wore zip hoodies and flip flops; the version of Jobs that Zuckerberg would have been exposed to did not dress that way (Jobs might have worn flip flops to work in the 1970s, given the era). Zuck wore plain, grey-blue, short sleeve shirts; Jobs did not. There isn't much to Zuck's sense of style beyond that it's simplistic and very casual - which is from the era he grew up in and how his young peers around him dressed.
Holmes by contrast did attempt to directly mimic the look of Jobs.
notinfuriated
I'm not referring to copying the actual style but rather copying the habit of wearing the same thing as a way to avoid spending time making the decision of what to wear. This concept was written about ad nauseam about a decade ago, with Jobs as the inspiration.
I don't assume Jobs was the first one to do it, and it's certainly more conspicuous that Holmes was copying Jobs' style, but I do assume that people like Zuckerberg copied Jobs directly as a result of hearing that this was some little productivity hack for Jobs. I associate this period as the same time the 'personal brand' was becoming more popular, and people started aping Steve Jobs as a way to either deceive people just through perception or as a good faith attempt to be like Steve.
https://medium.com/swlh/why-successful-people-wear-the-same-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/highly-successful-people-lik...
https://www.ctsolutionsglobal.com/post/2019/09/12/what-do-st...
https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-productivity-hack...
Here's an article that includes a quote of Zuckerberg explaining himself, which makes my speculation less of an assumption:
https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/the-reason-mark-zucker...
> “I really want to clear my life to make it so that I have to make as few decisions as possible about anything except how to best serve this community. There’s actually a bunch of psychology theory that even making small decisions, around what you wear or what you eat for breakfast or things like that, they kind of make you tired and consume your energy. My view is I’m in this really lucky position where I get to wake up every day and help serve more than 1 billion people, and I feel like I’m not doing my job if I spend any of my energy on things that are silly or frivolous about my life, so that way I can dedicate all of my energy towards just building the best products and services and helping us reach our goal and achieve this mission of helping to connect everyone in the world and giving them the ability to stay connected with the people that they love and care about. So, that’s what I care about. Even though it sounds silly that that’s my reason for wearing a grey t-shirt every day, it is true.”
> He then pointed out that others throughout history have done the same, like Steve Jobs, who was usually wearing a black mock neck.
ramblerman
> In contrast, children will copy every single action, including the unnecessary ones.
That video was super interesting but I'm not sure the conclusion is correct. In the experiment with the children an authority figure (including full medical suit) was put in front of them and told them "do these instructions".
The chimp wouldn't have that pressure. It's not quite the same experiment.
It would be interesting if you put 5 boxes in front of children and told them they had 1 minute to get as many sweets as they could, if they would still follow all the steps.
yodsanklai
There's no excuse to tolerate bad behavior. It's like an abusive relationship. When such a situation happens, you should start thinking of an exit plan ASAP.
taeric
There are also shockingly few areas where zero tolerance works. That is, don't silently tolerate bad behavior, but realize that many punishment oriented corrections are themselves bad behavior.
tenebrisalietum
I will tolerate W amount of X bad behavior for duration Y if I receive Z million dollars at the end of duration Y, for values of Z that equal or exceed 1.
undefined
ozim
There is also example of devs thinking they are another Linus Torvalds. Being assholes because they think they are brilliant coders. Unfortunately most of the times these people were inventing unnecessary complexity not writing some great code.
Mistletoe
Unfortunately I’m afraid the current version of this is the Elon Musk wannabes. What they don’t know is that many people that have worked for Musk have come forward from SpaceX and the like that say the only way to progress projects is to avoid his interference and/or learn how to present things to him in a way that he doesn’t sabotage it. I’ve worked for bosses like that before and it is terrible. Not only are you doing your difficult job task but you have a constant mini boss that pops up trying to spoil any forward progress.
fallingknife
Your "for the record" doesn't work even for that. Failure does not offset success.
ChrisMarshallNY
> Your "for the record" doesn't work even for that. Failure does not offset success.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the comment.
Sorry. I'm stupid that way.
fallingknife
In business, failure is the default outcome, not a negative. Someone who has failed 9 times and won big once is pretty much in the same place as someone who has tried once and succeeded once. Both are way ahead of someone who is 0-0.
undefined
lordnacho
I've seen the same. People see that to get things done, often you need to be unpleasant. So through logical acrobatics being unpleasant means they get things done. It even works for a while because it's true that if you're unpleasant you must be getting things done or you'd be gone.
jonnycomputer
Boss gives a dinner party at their home for their employees. All the guests show up in their best. Boss is in shorts, t-shirt and sandals.
borroka
In my non-U.S. hometown (people in the U.S. are, on average, much more shy in this context, oddly enough), this would have been considered extremely rude and awkward, and the boss would have been made fun of forever.
And not because he was in shorts, T-shirt and sandals, a respectable attire at the beach or pool, but not when other people are striving to present themselves at their best. Putting people down should never be fashionable.
Obscurity4340
Top shelf power play. This guy Zooms
brewdad
The real power play would be if the boss's t-shirt is the 3 for $10 variety from Target rather than a $200 bespoke one.
Obscurity4340
Also, how could you ever know that for the purpose of the discussion? I feel like it would have to be pretty damn specifically made for a "generic" t-shirt fitting that specific example with "bespoke" brand indicia or something... Prolly overthinking this
Obscurity4340
Not gonna lie, I'm nowhere near that "prestigious" and your comment already hits dangerously close to home, lol
eternalban
You missed the part where the maid serves little burgers on buns as lunch.
blitzar
"They are just like those white castle ones you see people eating in mukbang challenges online"
Obscurity4340
Honestly prefer sliders. They're cute and you can gauge them easier than their club-sized counterparts.
blitzar
> This guy Zooms
Shirt and tie up top, shorts below the camera line. Rock the same at the bosses dinner.
denton-scratch
Boss is a jerk.
988747
Or it's just a miscommunication: The boss was throwing the party with the intention of everyone having a chance to relax and have fun, but everyone else saw it as a career opportunity and "dressed for success".
notfromhere
Then the boss doesn't understand that people aren't not going to treat him like their boss so long as they work for him. Ultimately that guy signs their paychecks, that dynamic is going to be unequal for the entirety of that relationship.
jonnycomputer
Yeah, there are multiple interpretations possible of such a situation; my describing this kind of situation in the context of a discussion of counter-signalling biases our interpretation. A host dressing the most casually possible means that none of their guests will be under-dressed, for example. Also, the culture and expectations of the work place matter.
bulbosaur123
The poorer you are, the more you are interested in appearing rich. Higher EV in that play allowing increased chances to mingle with rich class.
The richer you are, the more you are interested in appearing humble. Higher EV in signalling "money speaks, wealth whispers" message and appearing "down-to-earth" to win people over.
Very often it pays to do the opposite of what is expected from you.
throwaway98797
there’s this paper scissors rock thing with wealth & money
poor: got to say you work hard when talking to middle class
middle class: got to say you work smart if you’re talking to upper class
upper class: got to say your work hard to peers, middle class, and poor, but reasons are different. for peers it’s because nihilism isn’t cool neither is being overly epicurean
everyone says the right narrative to the right people, no one really knows the truth
Spivak
Oh I never lie about the fact that I don’t work hard. Literally never worked a hard day in my whole life. Yet I make bank for some reason that still eludes me.
I am painfully aware of my privilege working in tech which is why I don’t hide it, and try my best to spread it around in ways that aren’t self-gratifying. I’ve paid my friends’ rent, car repairs, groceries, plane tickets so they could be home for the holidays, venmoed my struggling friends so they could go out with the group, hooked them up with jobs, bought concert and festival tickets. Literally no one in my social circle is allowed to say, “sorry I can’t money’s tight.” My only conditions are that they not thank me, never pay me back in any way whatsoever, and tell no one.
One of the managers in my office does the same thing since he also grew up poor and hungry. When your out to dinner with him you not escape without being stuffed to the brim, and dessert, and leftovers.
kyawzazaw
> The richer you are, the more you are interested in appearing humble. Higher EV in signalling "money speaks, wealth whispers" message and appearing "down-to-earth" to win people over.
Is that really the case though? Because I see a lot of university buildings and foundations named after really wealthy people. That's hardly "whsipers".
bulbosaur123
Yeah, but they aren't wearing Gucci loafers and drive a Toyota Corolla instead of a pimped out Rolls Royce Phantom, therefore they are "humble" and their names on University buildings just solidify how much they value "intellectual substance" over superficial things...at least that is what they want us to believe
themacguffinman
If the actually rich people are dressing down-to-earth, why would you dress fancily to appear rich? Surely you want to also dress down-to-earth so you appear like the rich people do.
bulbosaur123
Because if are a nobody and noone recognizes your face people will heuristically assume you aren't a "down to earth billionaire", but are instead just a poor, average person and thus insignificant. Zuck can appear to be humble in his clothes, because everyone knows who Zuck is and people expect famous billionaires to be smug assholes, so this is a way to countersignal and pretend to be "just like one of you, guys". Since you are "just one of us", it's in your interest to appear as something more.
themacguffinman
You may not be mistaken as a famous tech billionaire, but you may be mistaken as a well-to-do tech worker or even a tech startup lottery winner.
An example of this is in luxury retail stores, fancy/business clothing used to be such a strong signal of high status that retail workers there would often ignore you if you walked in wearing T-shirt & jeans because they'd think you couldn't afford it. Nowadays, that's a lot less likely, they know too many people dress like this for a retail worker to safely assume anything. There are a lot of wealthy people who aren't in the news all the time and a lot of them don't dress like a traditionally wealthy person.
082349872349872
because you and the actually rich people are not appearing to the same audience.
themacguffinman
"Higher EV in that play allowing increased chances to mingle with rich class" means that your intended audience is the actually rich people because you want to mingle with them.
ricardobayes
"Dress for the job you want, not the one you have"
sanderjd
> An example from Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland: If you’re a top executive, turning up to work on a bicycle is a high-status activity because it was a choice and not a necessity. But if you work at Pizza Hut, turning up on a bike means you can’t afford a car.
It must be so tedious to live having internalized this perspective on people. The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd. Most people who ride bikes to work just like to ride bikes and find it to be a convenient way to get to work, they aren't giving a single thought to how it plays in some status game that nobody else they interact with is thinking about either.
I find this whole genre incredibly unrelatable.
nostrademons
Most of this is unconscious for the general population, the consequence of mimicry + social cues + emotional rewards. The person who shows up to Pizza Hut on a bicycle isn't thinking about social status consciously. Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again. The top executive who shows up on a bicycle gets no such feedback, and so they keep doing it.
You see "accidental countersignaling" from people who are generally oblivious to social cues, like folks with Aspergers or recent immigrants to a country, because the subtle feedback from other people doesn't register for them. These people tend to exist apart from the social reality and inhabit only economic and physical reality.
Articles (and comments) like this one are describing what's going on, not prescribing it. Basically nobody goes into a social situation thinking "How can I raise my social status?" The people who do come off as phonies, because the emotions involved operate very subtly and quickly and if it's not unconscious it's apparent to other people. But you can analyze the situation after the fact and describe what's going on, as well as try to train your unconscious offline to have better responses to the situation you were in.
sanderjd
> Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again.
No they don't! Is my point. This is almost entirely a story made up by this bizarro world of smart people who think themselves into circles (and aren't working at pizza hut). Nobody cares how someone gets themselves to their job at pizza hut; the other people working there aren't thinking about this, the person riding the bike there isn't thinking about this. This is just people like us with too much time on our hands to write substacks and debate silly things on internet message boards constructing castles in the sky.
> Articles (and comments) like this one are describing what's going on, not prescribing it.
I recognize that it is attempting to describe what's going on. I am saying that I think it is failing to accurately describe what's going on.
abbadadda
You seem to be in denial that this phenomenon exists. I’d suggest reading _The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are._ Quite insightful. Status matters more than you’re letting on, and the perception of it is subconscious. No one (hopefully) is actively making an effort to look down on someone for riding their bike to their job at Pizza Hut - but many subtle things get registered by humans around us every day whether you or they are aware of it.
dilap
Check out the song "No Scrubs" by TLC for another angle on the same topic. It's a real phenomenon, not just something made up by nerds on substack.
Some people are blissfully checked out enough from social competition dynamics that they don't notice it.
ivalm
> The person who shows up to Pizza Hut on a bicycle isn't thinking about social status consciously. Instead, they get slightly pitying looks from coworkers, which make them feel slightly inferior and ashamed, which makes them not do it again
This is not how social dynamic at Pizza Hut works.
zach_garwood
Yeah, I feel like some of these commenters have never worked a minumum wage job in their lives.
rayiner
> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd
I was telling my dad that we were going to try a new restaurant. "They churn their own butter," I pointed out excitedly. And my dad--who grew up in a village in Bangladesh--is like "why would they churn their own butter? You can buy it in a store."
People convey all sorts of messages through subtle signaling. They have an image they try to cultivate, even if only unconsciously. For example, people on the west coast wear hoodies and T-shirts to signal a sort of casualness. Meanwhile, I don't wear hoodies or T-shirts because I'm worried people might mistake me for a day laborer.
I don't think most people who say they're above it all really are. Maybe they are. Or maybe they're not as self-aware of their own motivations. Or maybe they're in a cultural bubble where they can't recognize certain social currents as signaling.
themacguffinman
That's an odd take on the butter scenario. The obvious answer to your dad's question is "because although churning your own butter is not necessary, it can make a fresher and more interesting-tasting product than mass produced butter you buy at a store". When I look for restaurants that churn their own butter, I'm not looking to show off my status as someone who can afford unnecessary labor, I am actually "just doing things"; I am just looking for interesting and tasty food with interesting and tasty butter, I'm not trying to cultivate an image of myself as a foodie or rich person or avoiding being mistaken for a day-laborer.
I don't know why you've re-framed it into a status signal. Did you really value churning your own butter as a pure status signal and not for the benefits of artisinal butter?
notfromhere
It's both.
To that dad, making your own butter was not a cultural signal showing your dedication to getting good flavor from butter, it just meant you were poor. If you could buy butter at the store, you were rich.
As someone who grew up in a second world country, things like making your own butter or having your own chickens were just a sign of poverty, not a signal of distinct taste.
sanderjd
> For example, people on the west coast wear hoodies and T-shirts to signal a sort of casualness.
Again, no, they don't. I don't want to be too categorical here, I'm sure some people do this to signal something. But the vast majority of people wearing hoodies and t-shirts are just wearing comfortable clothes because they like to.
bloqs
You find it unrelatable (and most commenters on this website will too.)
People can be broadly separated into 2 categories in terms of cognitive wiring for personality psychology. "People people" and "Things* people". (Theres a lot of overlap between interest in aesthetics and interest in ideas here too, but a separate discussion) These map rather neatly onto other things like introversion and agreeableness, but parking that for a moment. Additionally, "People people" can learn about 'Things' and "Things people" can learn about 'People'.
Things people (so lets say, your bog standard software eng.) And people people (communications director) do have one thing in common, which is assuming they understand how the other thinks. What is irritating minutae to one, is the essence of importance to the other. Talking about the superiority of UTF8, Linux or Vim might come across as repulsively "iamverysmart" to "People people".
Observing social signals as signals, and the various hierachical cues that inform and are informed by them is the essense of being interested in other people. We all adhere to varying degrees of social order. To disparage the rules is perilous and risks ostracisation (in the olden days, this meant you didnt reproduce and died).
This dichotomy is responsible for a lot of the mechanics of organisational hierachies. Not everything is a math problem.
mikea1
This people-people vs. things-people dichotomy is an interesting theory. Did you read this somewhere or is this something you deduced?
photochemsyn
It comes across as an obsession with image-management, rather than with skill-development or something similarly practical and useful. While there's some need for taking care of one's appearance (poor personal hygiene, for example, is unpleasant for the people around you), putting this at the top of the list of things to worry about doesn't seem very healthy.
It's also a characteristic of con artists of the SBF/Holmes etc. variety. Patrick Boyle's latest video, "Why We Trust Fraudsters!" explores this in some depth:
beardedetim
> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things.
I agree with you that most actors don't consciously make decisions based on how they will be perceived and instead just do things.
However, I don't think that stops other actors from, without thinking themselves, taking those actions as signals and judging others by those signals.
We as the actors being judged can choose to think through those things or not. Either way we're being judged by those "signals". And either way I'm judging others based on those signals.
chiefalchemist
> The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things.
I've read Sutherland's "Alchemy" book and that's not how I remember him framing signaling.
Long to short, while - to your point - we are not all intentionally signaling, we are as receivers of inputs are constantly looking for and translating random input into signals.
The point being, whether you like it or not, you're giving off signals. Be mindful, or not. But if you go with the latter then you might at times be doing yourself a disservice because we as humans self-generate signals.
https://www.amazon.com/Alchemy-Surprising-Power-Ideas-Sense/...
p.s. I enjoyed the book. His is a very counter "conventional wisdom" mindset. That appeals to me.
sanderjd
> His is a very counter "conventional wisdom" mindset. That appeals to me.
This is basically what I see going on here, and what I mean by "the iamverysmart crowd" (which to be clear: I am a part of). We overindex on this kind of counter conventional wisdom because it's more interesting. But I think it's more often the case that the boring conventional wisdom is closer to the mark.
chiefalchemist
You'd have to read the book.
golemotron
> It must be so tedious to live having internalized this perspective on people. The vast vast majority of people are not "signaling" when they do things, they are just doing things. This constant meta game mostly exists in the minds of this iamverysmart crowd.
I think what you are missing is that they are signaling whether they realize it or not. A signal is just a discernible phenomenon that is given meaning by observers. It doesn't have be intentional.
An example: social counter-signaling often arises naturally and unconsciously. Think about the rich person who would rather not be recognized as such, or the person who is a bit carefree because they are beyond the grind. They don't consciously adopt a 'carefree persona', they just feel more at ease because of their life situation.
petercooper
Agreed. He is just placing observations of real phenomena into a model. It's a bit like with economics. Prices "signal" all sorts of things that the entity setting the prices may not well be aware of.
sanderjd
Sure, and as in economics, some models are not good ones. I think the OP is a poor model.
stephen_g
That example is also super geographically narrow. In a lot of Europe it'd just be normal to ride a bike to work, no matter what the social or economic status of the person. In Australia where I am people would assume you're really into cycling as a sport, or really care about the environment (thankfully infrastructure is improving so eventually hopefully it gets to the more 'just normal' level). I don't think anybody would assume somebody who cycles to work is 'poor' here in any job though!
matwood
The one that always bugs me is when rich, successful people tell others to follow their heart or passion. It's easy to follow your heart once you're already rich. The other one is that rich people don't think about money, which is bullshit. It's all they think about, even if they don't show it.
s3000
If you interpret it generously, those rich people may acknowledge that it takes luck to succeed. If you follow your heart you at least have enjoyed the ride if luck doesn't strike.
Following your heart can also be a great filter. If you maintain some level of compassion and integrity, you will create a product that customers want.
swayvil
Rich people are more dependent on their wealth than poor people. It's funny to think about.
A poor person depends on a diverse array of skills, relationships and resources.
A rich person depends on their account balance. They focus on that, basically in exclusion of all else.
It makes the way they see and behave really different.
It explains "wealthy miser" syndrome.
082349872349872
A rich person has people who focus on their account balance.
matwood
> diverse array of skills, relationships and resources
IDK. The people I know who I would consider rich money wise also have the above in spades.
lmm
> The other one is that rich people don't think about money, which is bullshit. It's all they think about, even if they don't show it.
Nonsense; almost the defining characteristic of being rich is that you don't need to think about money; if you need some it's there.
matwood
IMO, you fell into the trap. At least IME, people with money are always thinking about making more money. Obviously they aren't thinking about how to pay for food, but they are thinking about what to invest in, how their investments are doing, what else can they buy with the money that will make more money.
lmm
Not my experience at all. For a lot of people with money, that would be some combination of exhausting and boring. Why bother?
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
"An example from Ogilvy Vice Chairman Rory Sutherland: If you’re a top executive, turning up to work on a bicycle is a high-status activity because it was a choice and not a necessity. But if you work at Pizza Hut, turning up on a bike means you can’t afford a car."
This tidbit reminds me of a similar anecdote (that my experience aligns with) re: the modern upper class that wearing a $2k Rolex or driving a $70k BMW is frowned upon. But instead they have eccentric "hobbies" requiring $10ks of of equipment, inclusive of "needing" $10k viking stove/range, and $10k subzero fridge/freezer in your kitchen because you are a "foodie" and doing a $500k home Reno because you have good architectural taste and style. They probably still own a $70k Volvo (or now Tesla) anyway :-). In these scenarios I think it's because the $2k watch or $70k car is too easily attained by lower classes that they are no longer considered signals by the upper classes. However blowing $500k renovating a perfectly livable home, or $10k on an appliance you could spend as little as $1k on.. is not.
Another countersignal that the article points in the direction of is level of professional vs casual attire in the workplace. My friends and I are far enough in our careers that personally I've worn sneakers to work for the last 10 years, no business slacks, and sporadically tuck in my collared shirt. The last round of job searching doing zoom interviews, I wore my hoodie for half the calls. If I had done this while job searching out of college, during my internship, or at my first job.. I would not be where I am today.