There's a theory out
there, presented variously throughout history, but most recently by Robin
Hanson, that all or most human behavior is an attempt to achieve
"status" through "signaling." So, for example, if get
interested in photography, my main objective is to become a good photographer,
which people will then perceive and thus award me social status. I only play
guitar for the chicks, basically.
Of course, this is a
perfectly plausible - perhaps even likely
- perhaps even true - explanation of the
behavior of some individuals. Because this theory is certainly true for some
people and some actions and some situations, folks have a tendency to go all in
on it. The problem with the theory is that it is unnecessarily reductive. Just
because some of what I do aims at social status doesn't mean all of what I do
is. Just because a lot of what I do aims at social status doesn't mean it is
the best explanation for human behavior writ large.
There are many
specific problems with this view of human behavior, and I couldn't possibly
list them all here. But I got to thinking about one particular weakness of the
theory over the weekend. That problem is: human social groups play a weaker
role in our lives today than at any prior point in human history. Thanks to the
highly individualizing social changes instigated by the internet, rampant
marketing segmentation, and Western individualism, people are now less likely
to engage in close social interaction. There is no big Saturday night party in
today's world, as there was for previous generations. Many young people stay
home, while many others prefer to spend their time with a small group of close
friends, rather than the larger kind of in-group that would dole out social
status.
Indeed, to achieve
any significant kind of social status in today's world, one practically has to
already possess it. No one is interested in artists or musicians who are not already famous, which is why so much of art
marketing is designed to convince the public that a new artist is already a
star. You probably couldn't mention any rising stars in the athletics world,
either, unless you are already deeply invested in that athlete's team. The only
businesspeople you could probably mention by name are those who are famous
billionaires right at this minute, or those with whom you had the opportunity
to work directly. Ethicists, academics, doctors? Forget it. You simply don't
know these people by face or by name.
And that's the
point: we might all be motivated to pursue social status, but in this day and
age, none of us actually gets it. So, it's a poor explanation for human
behavior.
What I have noticed
that people do is choose, not an in-group, but an aesthetic.
I tried to
describe this in a recent post. If you consider yourself a
"rocker," then you will generally adopt the "rock
aesthetic," and likewise if you consider yourself a fitness buff or a
bookish person or a scientist.
Many people who
choose an aesthetic in this way often express opinions, but only when they are
consistent with their chosen aesthetic. For example, you're more likely to hear
about the importance of following the heart from someone who has chosen an artistic
aesthetic than you are from someone with a rocker aesthetic, even though they
both might believe it. You're more likely to hear about the importance of
saving for retirement from someone with a "savvy business guy"
aesthetic than you are from someone with a "rural farmer" aesthetic,
even though they both live accordingly. These opinions are not so much about
how people choose to live as they are memes that people express, especially on
social media, to curate a chosen aesthetic.
Today, a lot of
people are making impassioned statements about abortion. There is a group of
people out there who are very invested in this debate, but the vast majority of
people you see who express strong opinions on the abortion debate are not so
heavily invested in the debate. Instead,
they're presenting memes in support of their chosen aesthetic. A very religious
person will post a pro-life meme, effectively informing others of their views
on religion, not actually abortion. A
person heavily invested in presenting themselves as a "liberal" will
send out pro-choice memes for the same reason they send out climate change
memes or memes about the homeless. It's not about the issues at all, it's about
the aesthetic.
Separating the two
concepts in their own minds is often quite impossible. Ask the average person
if what they're saying is about the issues or about their general vibe, and he will most often say that of
course it's about the issue; even if it's not. So, I don't recommend that you
out people when they're engaged in aesthetic curation. I also don't recommend
that you spend too much time debating the issues with them. After all, they're
not interested in the facts. They're interested in what their memes tell others
about their aesthetic. In other words, they're interested in presenting their
identity, not their thoughts.
It's a lot easier to
question someone's thoughts than it is to question their identity. Don't get
confused; if someone is sharing their identity with you, it's not an invitation
to debate.
"Indeed, to achieve any significant kind of social status in today's world, one practically has to already possess it."
ReplyDeleteA fascinating observation!
"It's not about the issues at all, it's about the aesthetic. "
Ditto.
Good stuff. My first visit. I'm here because I was reading old Scott Sumner stuff. You quoted him:
“Forget about debt and focus on NGDP. It’s NGDP instability that creates problems, not debt surges.”
and said:
This is the closest I have ever seen of an economist saying “It’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the end.”
And I laughed so hard...
Hi, and thanks for reading! Sometimes I think I am too hard on Scott Sumner, but other times I just can't help myself. I had forgotten about that comment. :) I'm glad it inspired you to click through.
Delete