The Cat Eating Monster that is chasing me, the mouse that doesn't want to be my meal or the queen that I am trying to woo could not care less about how rough I had it when I was small, and my stopping to navel-gaze about What Does It All Mean? just gets in the way of successful outcomes.
I think there are a lot of false exousiological assumptions in this that you should examine. It's especially weird because these assumptions are analogous to the assumptions about individual psychology that the article is against. You are saying they people are really more genetic machines than verbal living stories, the narratives they produce are made up post hoc etc. Yet instead of society and hierarchy being an equilibrium of genetics, it's a living story made up of words: "our culture," "a culture that awards high status," "conceiving oneself as a victim indicates rather a willingness to subvert the old status hierarchy, and change the traditional status-allocation criteria", etc. You talk as if """status""" (define this please, do you just mean power? if so say power) is a conscious choice, a debate, determined by a word soup called Culture (define this please), as opposed to a necessary genetic equilibrium.
I do not consider "status" and "power" as the same conceptually, although they are related. Status involves *public knowledge* of possessing desirable traits or resources. Whereas it certainly makes sense to say that someone has the power of which other people are ignorant, it makes no sense to say that someone has the status of which other people are ignorant.
Changing status-allocation criteria= changing the set of traits that confer status, changing the set of rules that enable people to talk and think of certain people as more or less worthy.
I'm not claiming anything about whether you could change the set of traits people find desirable without changing the gene pool. What I'm saying in this regard is that there is a push toward "destigmatizing" certain traits or behaviors that traditionally were predominantly considered undesirable (that's what "intersectionality" and "identity politics" are about). Elimination of standardized testing for college admission is another example of an attempt to change status-allocation criteria.
It doesn't feel like you're trying to engage scientifically, rather it seems like you're just trying to post polemic. Models involving great debates over consensual goodfeel vibes (status) are discredited pseudoscience. It's all about power which is resources which is credit which is money. Everything else is just genes.
Things are very different for humans.
The Cat Eating Monster that is chasing me, the mouse that doesn't want to be my meal or the queen that I am trying to woo could not care less about how rough I had it when I was small, and my stopping to navel-gaze about What Does It All Mean? just gets in the way of successful outcomes.
I think there are a lot of false exousiological assumptions in this that you should examine. It's especially weird because these assumptions are analogous to the assumptions about individual psychology that the article is against. You are saying they people are really more genetic machines than verbal living stories, the narratives they produce are made up post hoc etc. Yet instead of society and hierarchy being an equilibrium of genetics, it's a living story made up of words: "our culture," "a culture that awards high status," "conceiving oneself as a victim indicates rather a willingness to subvert the old status hierarchy, and change the traditional status-allocation criteria", etc. You talk as if """status""" (define this please, do you just mean power? if so say power) is a conscious choice, a debate, determined by a word soup called Culture (define this please), as opposed to a necessary genetic equilibrium.
I do not consider "status" and "power" as the same conceptually, although they are related. Status involves *public knowledge* of possessing desirable traits or resources. Whereas it certainly makes sense to say that someone has the power of which other people are ignorant, it makes no sense to say that someone has the status of which other people are ignorant.
Changing status-allocation criteria= changing the set of traits that confer status, changing the set of rules that enable people to talk and think of certain people as more or less worthy.
Culture= widely distributed, long-lasting representations (Sperber, 1996).
How could you change the set of traits people find desirable without changing the gene pool?
I'm not claiming anything about whether you could change the set of traits people find desirable without changing the gene pool. What I'm saying in this regard is that there is a push toward "destigmatizing" certain traits or behaviors that traditionally were predominantly considered undesirable (that's what "intersectionality" and "identity politics" are about). Elimination of standardized testing for college admission is another example of an attempt to change status-allocation criteria.
It doesn't feel like you're trying to engage scientifically, rather it seems like you're just trying to post polemic. Models involving great debates over consensual goodfeel vibes (status) are discredited pseudoscience. It's all about power which is resources which is credit which is money. Everything else is just genes.