I think there's a difference between the concept of a 'luxury belief' being one that privileged people hold as a status signal, and one that can be held by privileged people without it hurting them and so we can say it's a status signal.
The suggestion by Rob H is that rich people hold these beliefs as status signals, whereas I think the…
I think there's a difference between the concept of a 'luxury belief' being one that privileged people hold as a status signal, and one that can be held by privileged people without it hurting them and so we can say it's a status signal.
The suggestion by Rob H is that rich people hold these beliefs as status signals, whereas I think the reality is that when a rich person holds that belief it's easy to say 'well you would say that, it's not going to hurt you', which you can't with a person of less privilege. The reasoning that less privileged people then believe it because of 'trickle down' seems ludicrous. Maybe there are beliefs that are entering into the mainstream, which people of all backgrounds believe/don't believe, and he's merely picking up on the fact that, for some people, those beliefs don't have a cost and then giving it a name. If anything, it's surely a stronger signal to believe in things which do cost you; so by his logic a belief in weakening monogamy should be a stronger signal for those of less privilege.
Can it be said that Power Signals (unadvertised power that transcend time and ethnic categories AKA "privilege") and Posture Signals (prestige through theatrical denial of privilege people do not have AKA "self-criticism") are not the same thing? this is an extension of Gervais Principle (a must-read) and reinterpretation of Hannah Arendt https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1099397426891214849
The main issue now is to test this theory based on quantifying and clustering differing social groups and attempting to see how polarized they are on certain topic. A harder problem is being able to distinguish semantic differences between NIMBY vs radicalism within survey questions.
I think there's a difference between the concept of a 'luxury belief' being one that privileged people hold as a status signal, and one that can be held by privileged people without it hurting them and so we can say it's a status signal.
The suggestion by Rob H is that rich people hold these beliefs as status signals, whereas I think the reality is that when a rich person holds that belief it's easy to say 'well you would say that, it's not going to hurt you', which you can't with a person of less privilege. The reasoning that less privileged people then believe it because of 'trickle down' seems ludicrous. Maybe there are beliefs that are entering into the mainstream, which people of all backgrounds believe/don't believe, and he's merely picking up on the fact that, for some people, those beliefs don't have a cost and then giving it a name. If anything, it's surely a stronger signal to believe in things which do cost you; so by his logic a belief in weakening monogamy should be a stronger signal for those of less privilege.
Can it be said that Power Signals (unadvertised power that transcend time and ethnic categories AKA "privilege") and Posture Signals (prestige through theatrical denial of privilege people do not have AKA "self-criticism") are not the same thing? this is an extension of Gervais Principle (a must-read) and reinterpretation of Hannah Arendt https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1099397426891214849
The main issue now is to test this theory based on quantifying and clustering differing social groups and attempting to see how polarized they are on certain topic. A harder problem is being able to distinguish semantic differences between NIMBY vs radicalism within survey questions.
Link to a table of idiosyncrasies between theories from multiple authors, however they are not completely congruent (and missing items like Empire Theory by Samo Burja, and Michael O Church's Class Ladder) https://americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-three-peoples-vs-yarvins-three-layers.html