Total Posts:141|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

the importance of social status

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

Which means that status is everything, and now I'm thinking I've never paid enough attention to it. Even stuff like when someone buys a new outfit and says that it makes her feel better about herself. It's a sign of status, that she has money and can spend it on herself, and it's a sign for everyone to see. That is, she feels better about herself because of the boost in status?

And then, of course, on DDO with the elo and ranking and the hall of fame. Also those respect threads.

But for some reason, I've never thought much about social status, when obviously I should have been. So I was just wondering if anybody has given the concept any thought? Why is it so important? How to get more of it?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:47:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

That is true, but that self destruction isn't always conscious and intentional. In the United States, poorer people both lack the resources to eat properly and even if they had the money to do so they don't often know how to take care of themselves.

Worse yet, poorer people are less likely to go to GPs for preventative care, they are more likely to shrug off the warning signs of cancer or a heart attack and they tend to not follow their doctor's instructions even when they've suffered a problem more so than wealthier people.
Tsar of DDO
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 5:22:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:47:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

That is true, but that self destruction isn't always conscious and intentional. In the United States, poorer people both lack the resources to eat properly and even if they had the money to do so they don't often know how to take care of themselves.

That's true. I think it's partly due to material reasons. But even in countries with universal, free healthcare and unemployment benefits, there's still a direct relationship between status and health outcomes. And this relationship occurs at every level of society - so the middle class has poor outcomes than the upper middle class, for example. And there's also that finding that subjective status has as much effect as objective status.

In other words, the difference can't be entirely explained by resources, lifestyle factors and environmental circumstances. There's a psychological or social component.

So I'm really curious about how that works at the individual level in terms of the choices people make and how status affects that.

Worse yet, poorer people are less likely to go to GPs for preventative care, they are more likely to shrug off the warning signs of cancer or a heart attack and they tend to not follow their doctor's instructions even when they've suffered a problem more so than wealthier people.

Why do you think that is? In a country where healthcare is free, for example, and sick days are legislated, why would low status people not take care of themselves as much as high status people? And why would they ignore their doctors more?
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:07:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 5:22:50 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:47:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

That is true, but that self destruction isn't always conscious and intentional. In the United States, poorer people both lack the resources to eat properly and even if they had the money to do so they don't often know how to take care of themselves.

That's true. I think it's partly due to material reasons. But even in countries with universal, free healthcare and unemployment benefits, there's still a direct relationship between status and health outcomes. And this relationship occurs at every level of society - so the middle class has poor outcomes than the upper middle class, for example. And there's also that finding that subjective status has as much effect as objective status.

I would think that diet and lifestyle have a significant impact on health outcomes, because poorer people can't afford to eat very high quality food in the same way that they are more likely to be performing intense manual labor jobs that tear the body down.

It might also be that poorer people don't know when, for example, they should go to the doctor. They probably only go when something feels very wrong, and when that feeling continues for several days or more. That could be because they are intimidated by the practice of medicine, that they don't believe that their problems are as important as other people's or for other reasons. I really don't know, though it would be an interesting question to pursue original research on.

In other words, the difference can't be entirely explained by resources, lifestyle factors and environmental circumstances. There's a psychological or social component.

I'm sure there is, but I'm not sure what that psychological or social component would be.

So I'm really curious about how that works at the individual level in terms of the choices people make and how status affects that.

I'd be really reluctant to do anything more than speculate here because answering that question would take some original research.

Worse yet, poorer people are less likely to go to GPs for preventative care, they are more likely to shrug off the warning signs of cancer or a heart attack and they tend to not follow their doctor's instructions even when they've suffered a problem more so than wealthier people.

Why do you think that is? In a country where healthcare is free, for example, and sick days are legislated, why would low status people not take care of themselves as much as high status people? And why would they ignore their doctors more?

I don't really have a good explanation for why, but I'd like to figure out a way to change it. It's possible that they don't know that they should be going to the doctor more, as much as it's possible that there may be some general cultural aversion to receiving medical care. But I really don't know...
Tsar of DDO
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:47:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

Which means that status is everything, and now I'm thinking I've never paid enough attention to it. Even stuff like when someone buys a new outfit and says that it makes her feel better about herself. It's a sign of status, that she has money and can spend it on herself, and it's a sign for everyone to see. That is, she feels better about herself because of the boost in status?

And then, of course, on DDO with the elo and ranking and the hall of fame. Also those respect threads.

But for some reason, I've never thought much about social status, when obviously I should have been. So I was just wondering if anybody has given the concept any thought? Why is it so important? How to get more of it?

It's a good example of why hierachical societies are bad for us, I think.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 6:44:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

Which means that status is everything, and now I'm thinking I've never paid enough attention to it. Even stuff like when someone buys a new outfit and says that it makes her feel better about herself. It's a sign of status, that she has money and can spend it on herself, and it's a sign for everyone to see. That is, she feels better about herself because of the boost in status?

And then, of course, on DDO with the elo and ranking and the hall of fame. Also those respect threads.

But for some reason, I've never thought much about social status, when obviously I should have been. So I was just wondering if anybody has given the concept any thought? Why is it so important? How to get more of it?

Social status is a sham. I think its dumb, especially if people treat you different dependent on where you subjectively are on the social chain.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:46:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

I was holding back on this, but I read some literature on this phenomenon a while back. I'm a big believer in group selection as to how it relates to evolution. It seems that increases the survival of the group if the person with low social status gets I'll and dies faster.

It makes sense if you think about it. The person that contributes very little to the tribe is a liability.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:49:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:46:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

I was holding back on this, but I read some literature on this phenomenon a while back. I'm a big believer in group selection as to how it relates to evolution. It seems that increases the survival of the group if the person with low social status gets I'll and dies faster.

It makes sense if you think about it. The person that contributes very little to the tribe is a liability.

There's a book called The Working Poor you might ought to read, though it doesn't necessarily relate directly to the point you're making here. I just think you might benefit from it.
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:53:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:49:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:46:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

I was holding back on this, but I read some literature on this phenomenon a while back. I'm a big believer in group selection as to how it relates to evolution. It seems that increases the survival of the group if the person with low social status gets I'll and dies faster.

It makes sense if you think about it. The person that contributes very little to the tribe is a liability.

There's a book called The Working Poor you might ought to read, though it doesn't necessarily relate directly to the point you're making here. I just think you might benefit from it.

I'll google it right now, to see if it's something I'd be interested in.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:49:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:46:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

I was holding back on this, but I read some literature on this phenomenon a while back. I'm a big believer in group selection as to how it relates to evolution. It seems that increases the survival of the group if the person with low social status gets I'll and dies faster.

It makes sense if you think about it. The person that contributes very little to the tribe is a liability.

There's a book called The Working Poor you might ought to read, though it doesn't necessarily relate directly to the point you're making here. I just think you might benefit from it.

Yeah you're right it doesn't relate too much. I was talking about the low social status being a liability to the group in tribal society. I don't really think our DNA is properly coded for modern times.

I might actually read the book, I'm not sure I have to. I've had to really fight hard, myself to go form extremely poor to less poor. I've had a high IQ to help me, but I actually think I would've done better if my IQ was about 20 points lower.

Being good at everything and learning extremely quickly is a weakness, because it takes away from my focus. I'm 31 and I just learned how to focus a few years ago, somewhat.

Getting an education really is off the table for me at this point. I'm just leaning on my superior social dynamics and a work ethic that is more insane than any reasonable person should have. I'll die, before I don't complete a task, and I put absolutely everything on my shoulders.

I'm aware of the problems highlighted in that book, but I have a feeling me and you probably have 2 extremely different approaches to solving the problem.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:09:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:07:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'm aware of the problems highlighted in that book, but I have a feeling me and you probably have 2 extremely different approaches to solving the problem.

What's your approach?
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:09:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:07:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'm aware of the problems highlighted in that book, but I have a feeling me and you probably have 2 extremely different approaches to solving the problem.

What's your approach?

I won't speculate on yours, because I don't want to offend you if I'm wrong. I think laissez faire capitalism would significantly increase the amount of small businesses. My research has shown that more heavily regulated markets lead to less competition. When FDR created a bunch of regulations for banking, mom and pop banks had the majority of the market share, but afterwords big banks have a the majority of the market share. The same thing happened when the FDA entered the picture. It was a bunch of small businesses that people got their food from and now a handful of companies provide the bulk of the American diet.

So in my opinions regulations are created to increase market share for the companies that own the politicians. Even if it's an unintentional side affect it still does the same damage.

I don't know if you seen my debate on welfare, but if you did you can see the problems I think are inherent in social programs.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:28:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:22:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:09:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:07:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'm aware of the problems highlighted in that book, but I have a feeling me and you probably have 2 extremely different approaches to solving the problem.

What's your approach?

I won't speculate on yours, because I don't want to offend you if I'm wrong. I think laissez faire capitalism would significantly increase the amount of small businesses. My research has shown that more heavily regulated markets lead to less competition. When FDR created a bunch of regulations for banking, mom and pop banks had the majority of the market share, but afterwords big banks have a the majority of the market share.

I'm not sure, at least when it comes to banking, that that's a bad thing.

The same thing happened when the FDA entered the picture. It was a bunch of small businesses that people got their food from and now a handful of companies provide the bulk of the American diet.

NAFTA and the various agricultural tariffs that certain Big-Farm lobbies have coerced congress to implement really is what's behind the problems you're talking about. But, I'm not sure that huge food conglomerates are a bad thing either, so long as there are multiple, competing conglomerates.

So in my opinions regulations are created to increase market share for the companies that own the politicians. Even if it's an unintentional side affect it still does the same damage.

But the lack of regulation can also allow both vertically and horizontally integrated multinationals/conglomerates/cartels to form...

I don't know if you seen my debate on welfare, but if you did you can see the problems I think are inherent in social programs.

I haven't, but the problem isn't welfare as it is, but how welfare works in the United States -and more importantly what welfare doesn't do (i.e. make people employable).
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:28:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:22:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:09:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:07:39 PM, Wylted wrote:
I'm aware of the problems highlighted in that book, but I have a feeling me and you probably have 2 extremely different approaches to solving the problem.

What's your approach?

I won't speculate on yours, because I don't want to offend you if I'm wrong. I think laissez faire capitalism would significantly increase the amount of small businesses. My research has shown that more heavily regulated markets lead to less competition. When FDR created a bunch of regulations for banking, mom and pop banks had the majority of the market share, but afterwords big banks have a the majority of the market share.

I'm not sure, at least when it comes to banking, that that's a bad thing.

The same thing happened when the FDA entered the picture. It was a bunch of small businesses that people got their food from and now a handful of companies provide the bulk of the American diet.

NAFTA and the various agricultural tariffs that certain Big-Farm lobbies have coerced congress to implement really is what's behind the problems you're talking about. But, I'm not sure that huge food conglomerates are a bad thing either, so long as there are multiple, competing conglomerates.

They may not be a bad thing, but it's still a trade off. We have less small business owners as a result and more people who otherwise would have been well off, virtual slaves to these companies.

I'm sure there is obvious problems to the system I'm talking about, but I assure you there are policies to address those short comings. For the sake of brevity, I won't mention them here.

So in my opinions regulations are created to increase market share for the companies that own the politicians. Even if it's an unintentional side affect it still does the same damage.

But the lack of regulation can also allow both vertically and horizontally integrated multinationals/conglomerates/cartels to form...

It seems like it's the regulation helping those things to form. I'm aware that they'll form under the system I proposed, but I think it would be to a lesser degree.

A lot of monopolies before modern regulation seemed to be built on the backs of either slaves or workers treated so poorly they might as well have been slaves. I do believe that it would be immensely tougher to build a monopoly where the rights of workers are respected and where there is a lack of regulations.

I don't know if you seen my debate on welfare, but if you did you can see the problems I think are inherent in social programs.

I haven't, but the problem isn't welfare as it is, but how welfare works in the United States -and more importantly what welfare doesn't do (i.e. make people employable).

That's my problem with these regulations also. Everyone agrees they're bad, the usually are looking for some magic formula to undo the damage done by these regulations. Why not just forget tweaking the system. Why not toss out the system, since it doesn't work? Everytime we tweak something more problems arise, why not just let nature take it's course?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:21:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

I think the main problem is assuming there is such a thing as "objective anything" that we can "objectively" understand. No, our understanding is subjective by definition, and just because everyone believes it just means our collective understanding is subjective.

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

Would you say that Buffett's or Gates's philanthropy is a result of some sort of self-perception of low status on his part?

Which means that status is everything, and now I'm thinking I've never paid enough attention to it. Even stuff like when someone buys a new outfit and says that it makes her feel better about herself. It's a sign of status, that she has money and can spend it on herself, and it's a sign for everyone to see. That is, she feels better about herself because of the boost in status?

And then, of course, on DDO with the elo and ranking and the hall of fame. Also those respect threads.

IMHO status matters if the subject thinks it matters. It's a subjective belief.

But for some reason, I've never thought much about social status, when obviously I should have been. So I was just wondering if anybody has given the concept any thought? Why is it so important? How to get more of it?

Power.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:24:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 5:22:50 AM, rross wrote:
In a country where healthcare is free, for example, and sick days are legislated, why would low status people not take care of themselves as much as high status people? And why would they ignore their doctors more?

You're clearly not describing America here, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?

It's the fact that if you got a bunch of small business owners, instead of minimum wage employees, they'll tend to have a little but better of a life.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 8:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:07:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?

It's the fact that if you got a bunch of small business owners, instead of minimum wage employees, they'll tend to have a little but better of a life.

That's a very strange sentiment to hear from a capitalist.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 8:53:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:07:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?

It's the fact that if you got a bunch of small business owners, instead of minimum wage employees, they'll tend to have a little but better of a life.

That's a very strange sentiment to hear from a capitalist.

Why? Did you read my exchanges with YYW, to see some of my premises. In this thread.

I think different political ideologies want to see a lot of the same things. It's just a matter of figuring out the best course of action to take.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:34:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:24:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:53:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:07:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?

It's the fact that if you got a bunch of small business owners, instead of minimum wage employees, they'll tend to have a little but better of a life.

That's a very strange sentiment to hear from a capitalist.

Why? Did you read my exchanges with YYW, to see some of my premises. In this thread.

I think different political ideologies want to see a lot of the same things. It's just a matter of figuring out the best course of action to take.

Seemed like you were admiring hierarchy earlier, and I certainly despise that, so our shared interest must be abstract indeed... In any case, I have yet to meet a capitalist who is not either confused or heartless. In this age the primary creator of social hierarchy is, it seems to me, capitalism, seeing as we are forgetting about aristocracy and superstition.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:34:47 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 9:24:44 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:53:56 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:07:14 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 8:49:22 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 11:02:06 PM, Wylted wrote:

What do you see as so good about small business anyway?

It's the fact that if you got a bunch of small business owners, instead of minimum wage employees, they'll tend to have a little but better of a life.

That's a very strange sentiment to hear from a capitalist.

Why? Did you read my exchanges with YYW, to see some of my premises. In this thread.

I think different political ideologies want to see a lot of the same things. It's just a matter of figuring out the best course of action to take.

Seemed like you were admiring hierarchy earlier, and I certainly despise that, so our shared interest must be abstract indeed... In any case, I have yet to meet a capitalist who is not either confused or heartless. In this age the primary creator of social hierarchy is, it seems to me, capitalism, seeing as we are forgetting about aristocracy and superstition.

I value freedom pretty highly or what some may call natural rights. I like the ideal of anarchy (no rulers), but I don't see a suitable form of government to implement that.

The industrialization of society has ruined any chance of that, in my opinion. The only way out is to either burn everything to the ground or press full speed ahead with technology. Both ways out are extremely painful.

How would you eliminate hierarchy?

I've looked at different places that tried to implement some forms of anarchy and none has accomplished that task. Usually a business or a farm will be taken over by the workers and than somebody from this new union will be put in charge. People still have to ask the union boss, permission to take a vacation or a day off and not much really changes.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:43:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:53:19 PM, Wylted wrote:

Seems pretty odd that you suppose a government might abolish itself. We didn't call on the Church to promote secularism. I also have no idea why industrialisation would have some particular role in maintaining hierarchy. Fundamentally all it is is asking that society be organised without coercion - is that really too much for humanity to handle? It's bizarre you can sit there casually informing me that human society cannot be anything but predicated upon evil. Also, capitalists don't value freedom, private property being a restriction of it. Sorry.

Quite frankly I struggle to believe that hierarchy exists. Just imagine finding yourself in an anarchist society which cannot even remember the days of the state and ask them 'Would you like to dedicate your life's work to the enrichment of a few individuals in society? Would you like to surrender your freedom to someone and support them in oppressing you? Do you even think it is possible for millions of people to all believe that it is okay that they be ruled over?'. Obedience has been inculcated into every child for the entire history of humanity and yet we have still managed to realise that a monarch is not fit to rule, that no one should be owned by another, that we do not need God to govern our minds... one day we will realise that capitalism and the state too are intolerable. I don't think anything needs to be done to destroy the hierarchies of our society but challenge them and show them to be irrational and cruel. They can't kill us any more for our beliefs. Freedom and democracy are already held in the highest esteem - the truth of those concepts has simply been hid from the people. Freedom is the condition of having no one in power over you, and thus a free society must necessarily be an equal society. Democracy is the rule of the people, that is to say, self-governance, not a system under which the people are presented with propaganda and told they must approve of one candidate's policies, lest a candidate with even worse policies win.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 10:43:02 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/30/2014 9:53:19 PM, Wylted wrote:

Seems pretty odd that you suppose a government might abolish itself. We didn't call on the Church to promote secularism. I also have no idea why industrialisation would have some particular role in maintaining hierarchy. Fundamentally all it is is asking that society be organised without coercion - is that really too much for humanity to handle? It's bizarre you can sit there casually informing me that human society cannot be anything but predicated upon evil. Also, capitalists don't value freedom, private property being a restriction of it. Sorry.

Quite frankly I struggle to believe that hierarchy exists. Just imagine finding yourself in an anarchist society which cannot even remember the days of the state and ask them 'Would you like to dedicate your life's work to the enrichment of a few individuals in society? Would you like to surrender your freedom to someone and support them in oppressing you? Do you even think it is possible for millions of people to all believe that it is okay that they be ruled over?'. Obedience has been inculcated into every child for the entire history of humanity and yet we have still managed to realise that a monarch is not fit to rule, that no one should be owned by another, that we do not need God to govern our minds... one day we will realise that capitalism and the state too are intolerable. I don't think anything needs to be done to destroy the hierarchies of our society but challenge them and show them to be irrational and cruel. They can't kill us any more for our beliefs. Freedom and democracy are already held in the highest esteem - the truth of those concepts has simply been hid from the people. Freedom is the condition of having no one in power over you, and thus a free society must necessarily be an equal society. Democracy is the rule of the people, that is to say, self-governance, not a system under which the people are presented with propaganda and told they must approve of one candidate's policies, lest a candidate with even worse policies win.

You took this off, on a completely different path than where it was. You've also put words into my mouth (metaphorically), that weren't there before. You've avoided my questions, and I do believe this conversation to now be pointless.

I believe your philosophy to be a little incoherent and that's why you struggle to stay on topic. In the future you might want to use more effort into understanding opposing opinions, and on exploring your own premises.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:43:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

Thanks for the encouragement. :)
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:46:56 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:05:25 PM, YYW wrote:
I will say, as well, that this is one of the best threads I've seen in the Society section in a very long time. I'd be very interested in all perspectives relating to the issue that Rross outlines here, and props to her for initiating this conversation.

I was holding back on this, but I read some literature on this phenomenon a while back. I'm a big believer in group selection as to how it relates to evolution. It seems that increases the survival of the group if the person with low social status gets I'll and dies faster.

It makes sense if you think about it. The person that contributes very little to the tribe is a liability.

I don't think so. I think you have to look at individual selection or at least kin selection. Otherwise, within any group, the individuals (or families) who always acted in life-sustaining ways would have an advantage over those who acted in self-damaging ways when low status.

But I'm actually more interested in the specific cognitive or social mechanism- how status can affect behavior that way. Even if you could put forward a viable evolutionary theory, we'd still need to understand the process of it.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:07:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 6:44:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Social status is a sham. I think its dumb, especially if people treat you different dependent on where you subjectively are on the social chain.

"Status" is a loaded term. But you might think of it in a different way - there might be people who you respect and admire (for valid reasons) and you pay more attention to them than you do to people you have less respect for. That's just natural, and that's status.

For example, on this site, look at the debate.org forum, which currently is half-full of threads that should really be there - they should be in the personal, miscellaneous or games threads, or whatever. But only some people get told off when they start an inappropriate thread, and those people are almost always low status people.

Endarkenedrationalist doesn't get told off for this:
http://www.debate.org...

Maikuru doesn't get told off for this:
http://www.debate.org...

But a new guy gets told off straight away for this:
http://www.debate.org...

Status, see? If you really think it's a sham, then tell start telling Maikuru and endarkenedrationalist to use the appropriate forum (games and miscellaneous) for their threads. If you dare. :)
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:09:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 12:07:03 AM, rross wrote:
At 6/29/2014 6:44:07 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Social status is a sham. I think its dumb, especially if people treat you different dependent on where you subjectively are on the social chain.

"Status" is a loaded term. But you might think of it in a different way - there might be people who you respect and admire (for valid reasons) and you pay more attention to them than you do to people you have less respect for. That's just natural, and that's status.

For example, on this site, look at the debate.org forum, which currently is half-full of threads that should really be there - they should be in the personal, miscellaneous or games threads, or whatever. But only some people get told off when they start an inappropriate thread, and those people are almost always low status people.

Endarkenedrationalist doesn't get told off for this:
http://www.debate.org...

Maikuru doesn't get told off for this:
http://www.debate.org...

But a new guy gets told off straight away for this:
http://www.debate.org...

Status, see? If you really think it's a sham, then tell start telling Maikuru and endarkenedrationalist to use the appropriate forum (games and miscellaneous) for their threads. If you dare. :)

Alright I see your point lol
Nolite Timere
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 12:17:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:21:42 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/27/2014 10:32:05 PM, rross wrote:
So it turns out that subjective socioeconomic status is equally as predictive of negative health outcomes as objective SES. And that the relationship between SES and health can only partly be explained by access to resources and lifestyle factors. This guy thinks that it's because of the human power to "corrosively subordinate its have-nots"

I think the main problem is assuming there is such a thing as "objective anything" that we can "objectively" understand. No, our understanding is subjective by definition, and just because everyone believes it just means our collective understanding is subjective.

In the social sciences, when it comes to measurement, "subjective" just means self-report, and "objective" means not self-report. So subjective status would be the result of a survey with questions like, "rate your social status"; objective status would just be some kind of educational/income measurement. The point I was trying to make is that the difference in health outcomes cannot be fully explained by material differences.

http://www.sciencemag.org...

In other words, people look after themselves if they feel that they have high status, but when they have low status they kind of destroy themselves for psychosocial reasons.

Would you say that Buffett's or Gates's philanthropy is a result of some sort of self-perception of low status on his part?

No, but I doubt that their philanthropy would lead to negative health outcomes, or indeed to any bad outcomes for them.

At 6/29/2014 5:22:50 AM, rross wrote:
In a country where healthcare is free, for example, and sick days are legislated, why would low status people not take care of themselves as much as high status people? And why would they ignore their doctors more?

You're clearly not describing America here, lol.

Yes. The lower classes in America are amazingly subordinated. Why is that?