No Balconies in Vegas, Or How to Deal with Being a Low Status Individual

Alternate Title: Why Steven Pinker is correct, but Annoying

Introduction: Why Steven Pinker is correct, but annoying

The Steven Pinker World View™ comes across as a data-driven version of toxic positivity.

"The majority of the world used to live below the poverty line!" Agreed, there were no tech startup CEO's during the time of hunter gatherers. People didn't need to be extremely economically productive in order to subsist.

"Humans lived about 30 years on average." Humans have one ovary on average. Taking the mathematical average like this is misleading, considering the data is skewed by infant mortality. It's obviously great that we’ve largely negated this problem, but it's a separate issue.

"Modernity has brought about unprecedented levels of literacy." Societies develop competencies in relation to what is required of them. How many people today can read the constellations?

To be clear, the Pinker worldview is not wrong, and in absolute terms he is correct in outlining all the ways the world has gotten better.

Rather, it's the implication we should feel gratitude which comes across as condescending. At the extremes it becomes obvious; I doubt Pinker himself would tell his African American colleagues they should be grateful to live in a time where slavery is abolished.

The truth is, most people don’t compare themselves to people who died long before they were born. It’s too abstracted from direct experience. Rather, we compare ourselves to the population living here and now.

And that's why our happiness doesn't track 1 for 1 with the Pinker Metrics™. The truth about our psychology is...

A nontrivial portion of our happiness comes from status games

A Hypothetical:

Usain Bolt is getting ready to compete in his final 100 meter sprint. Before he steps out onto the track, he is greeted by a Genie who offers him one of two potential futures:

1. He runs a 9.60 race, which does not break his previous world record of 9.58 - but this is still better than everyone else that day, earning him the gold medal.

2. He runs a 9.57 race, which is a new world record. Yet, he only takes the silver; in the same race some freak of nature also breaks the world record, running 9.56.

Which option do you think he chooses? Which option would subjectively make him feel happier?

I lean towards the former, considering it offers more immediate status. The objective circumstances (breaking the record) matter less than the relative circumstances (winning gold).

In "The Status Game" by Will Storr, the author highlights the many idiosyncratic ways people gain status, many of which are counterintuitive. Examples:

1. The people of Pohnpei tribe who gain notoriety and prestige by growing the biggest yams (Chapter 3)

2. Ben Gunn, the prisoner voluntarily decided to go back to prison where where he had established a reputation for himself (Chapter 1)

3. CEO's who wear sweatpants to the board room (chapter 6)

4. The Indian Caste System, where the "untouchables" from one part of India can still feel the sense of superiority over the untouchables next door (Chapter 14)

5. Religions and cults (Chapters 17, 21, 24)

6. Incels, Hikikimori, online trolls, modern victimhood/cancel culture (Chapters 4, 18, 19, 20)

This summary by Jes Oliphant summarizes the book in more detail

There are some aspects of the book worthy of critique.

First, the way the author partitions the different types of status games — dominance games, virtue games and success games — was relatively unconvincing. For example, he cites war as a dominance game, religion as a virtue game, and capitalism as a success game. It's very easy to argue war is a virtue game, and both capitalism and religion are dominance games.

Second, there's an unfalsifiable element to his argument. In chapter nine he points out that even playing a crossword puzzle contributes to some internal status game. So the question arises: when is one not playing a status game?

Nevertheless, it is an enlightening lens to view the world, as it becomes clear how much people's behaviour is an abstract manifestation of “I am a high status individual." Or at least, “I am not a low status individual."

Simple truth of the matter is, for most of us, having status feels good — and losing status can feel worse than death. And that’s why…

There are no balconies in Vegas

The current malaise of North American society can be explained by a lack of status so many people feel. Contra Pinker, we don't compare ourselves to people who lived hundreds of years ago. We get our benchmarks from the society we actually live in, which includes:

1. The people "winning" society, who very often post about their accomplishments on social media

2. The previous generation who raised us

By these benchmark, things appear pretty bleak for the majority. Sure, we can now talk to our iPhones and generate pictures of the Pope wearing Balenciaga, but housing, healthcare, and higher education have effectively become luxury goods.

“You better pray for a full scholarship, son.”

As NYU professor Scott Galloway summarizes it: "For the first time in our history, a 30-year-old is not doing as well as his/her parents were at 30."

If there was one thing The Status Game made clear, it's that the fear of falling behind can feel worse than death. And if you fall behind all at once — such as losing your life savings in a single hand of blackjack — well, you'll have to take the elevator down the building. The balconies are closed.

Status games explain why more people kill themselves after sudden financial hardship than a terminal illness. It also explains why mental health improved during the London bombings in World War 2 (as detailed in the book "Tribe" by Sebastian Junger). Again, it's not the absolute circumstances, but the relative.

And the simple truth is...

You are always playing a status game, but your brain likes to hide it from you

For some people it's having that supermodel body. For other people it's publishing the revolutionary paper. Sports, fame, IQ, Instagram followers, enlightenment, to good old money, everybody has some game inside their head that they want to win.

No doubt there are some reading this who believe that they don't care about such "shallow" and "superficial" things. These people are fooling themselves. Being “above it” is just another strategy. They want everyone to know that they have mastered the subtle art of not giving a f*ck.

It's easy to judge other people's status games when it's completely different to the one we are playing. Some examples:

1. Elon Musk thinks he's coming across as a warrior for the truth when he has some spicy words for advertisers. In reality he just comes across like this.

2. This guy who explains that he doesn't talk to his family because they don't have enough followers on Instagram. (The picture above)

3. This guy who finds it hilarious that people in the western world only have one wife.

But when it comes to the status games that we are playing, we are the Elon Dr. Phil Polygamist™.

It’s kind of like smell. The longer you are immersed in a given status game, the more you become blind to it. You inevitably end up losing perspective. That's why multimillionaires can still have low self esteem when they look at their bank account. It's why the untouchables of India can still see themselves as superior to their neighbors.

Conclusion

While writing this, the song Kiln by Hail Mary Mallon kept playing in my head. Especially these lyrics:

Man... shamefully whichever way you cut it

I was trying to impress some people I can't even stomach

You'd like to think you're cool enough to not care if you're cool

But the spirit gets distracted, the flesh is f*cking cruel

Cruel indeed.

In terms of solutions, I can only give you the corny self-help kind:

1. Be aware of the games that you are playing, and choose those games wisely.

2. Don't let your entire identity hinge on a single game. Diversify your portfolio, so to speak.

3. And the corniest of all: the most valid comparison that you can ever make is to previous versions of yourself.

But beyond this, there's no way to avoid the status game. It's like Moloch; if you are a human being guided by incentives, then you're playing.