Hacker News Reader

Comment by esotericn | Hacker News Reader

Status signalling works.

I wish it didn't. Life would be much simpler. But it really does.

Wearing different clothes, driving a different car (or not driving a car, riding a bike) has an enormous impact on the impression that you leave on people.

It's not necessarily 'spend more win more'. A fancy car might not ingratiate you with the locals.

Beyond that - I think you have to unpick what is meant by "don't need". If I were restricted to buying things I need, I'd be donating something like 80% of my income to charity.

There are interesting cases - like why someone who really can't afford a particular thing buys it anyway - but usually that sort of thing, in my experience, comes down to a type of stress that has them making suboptimal decisions all over (e.g. if you're poor, everything is harder, because everything is stressful, and...)

View on HN

It's important to remember that EVERY group uses status signaling.

Those hoodies you wear? You are signaling which tribe you belong to and your status within it. (In particular, this one is called "aposematic signaling", or I-can-get-away-with-it signaling.)

You think you're beyond status by intellectualizing over status signaling? No, instead you're just signaling (via intellectual status) to ingratiate yourself within a tribe that values intellectualism.

I have a fairly intellectual group of friends, and it was a sobering realization for us when we all noticed that - at least in part - the degree to which we share our intellectual curiosities may simply reflect a way to stay "in-group." Should we fail to intellectualize, then we might no longer "fit in" and belong to a tribe.

People signal in different ways - some by bragging, others by refusing to brag, some by buying, some by refusing to buy - but in the end, it's mostly about pledging allegiance to one tribe and rejecting the other in opposition. It's really no different from politics.

Everyone belongs to a tribe, and every tribe has a status hierarchy.

I think this is a very spot-on comment.

If someone's signalling doesn't make sense to you, then it wasn't intended for you.

There are groups and sub-groups in society and we tune our behaviors to fit into our desired groups. Partly consciously and partly not.

That’s only really true for homogeneous groups. When culturally diverse people get together they rarely agree on what the status symbols are. Think old vs new money at a party. For any given metric say highest status, smartest, strongest, or most attractive person it’s hard to define an absolutely objective criteria.

Precisely! But I would argue that homogeneity (in beliefs, culture, SES) is what defines the tribe.

A heterogenous, divided group would not be a cohesive tribe, and therefore would not have a unifying status hierarchy. Old money and new money are separate tribes, and each status signals to ingroup members in profoundly different ways.

I’ve noticed that how formally you “have” to dress as a woman in corporate IT is an inverse parabola.

Receptionists? Often have strict dress codes demanding skirts and pantyhose.

Actual executives? Pantsuits and high end handbags with matching shoes.

Team assistants (aka, senior secretaries): moderately-priced business casual

Managers? Somewhat more expensive business casual

Developers and engineers like myself who will always be “individual contributors”? Jeans, hiking boots and t-shirts, with accessories and non-hiking ankle boots when feeling fancy.

And that latter definitely carries the status of, “I don’t think I’m judged by my appearance.”

> There are interesting cases - like why someone who really can't afford a particular thing buys it anyway - but usually that sort of thing, in my experience, comes down to a type of stress that has them making suboptimal decisions all over (e.g. if you're poor, everything is harder, because everything is stressful, and...)

In Fussell's Class he diagnoses this as a deeply "middle class" (in terms of socialization, not necessarily income) behavior. Especially if the "luxury" things they're buying but can't afford are also actually kind of bad and not something someone socialized into upper-middle or upper-class attitudes would want (one notable category as an example: just about anything with a conspicuous brand logo on it).

> one notable category as an example: just about anything with a conspicuous brand logo on it

This one in particular grates on me. The company is in effect using you as a billboard. Unfortunately there are some types of products where this is virtually ubiquitous, even at the high end. Cycling gear is a good example.

On the one hand, status signaling is both unfair and error prone, but on the other hand it's understandable. It's merely a way for humans to cope with having limited knowledge. If you're trying to gauge a person socially, you have to work with the data you have on-hand. In a sense, you could even say that making time to improve your external appearance is an act of empathy towards others.

I see the bling as fake.

But I've seen poor people believe in it.

Maybe this is useful in some cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com