This is the 6th and final lecture of [[Rob Henderson]]'s [[PA Psychology of Social Status]] on [[Peterson Academy]]. This lecture is especially exciting because it is on Henderson's original idea of luxury beliefs. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while often inflicting costs on the lower classes. This term is coined by Rob Henderson. Main argument: luxury beliefs are the new luxury goods. Puzzle 1: The more [status] you have, the more you want. Puzzle 2: What does top hats and defunding the police have in common? ## History of luxury beliefs - [[Adam Smith]] argues that vain, self-important men adopt certain beliefs for social approval. - [[Thorstein Veblen]] in [[The Theory of The Leisure Class]] argued that wealthy people show communicate their financial status to others, and judge others' status via status symbols like luxury goods, leisurely hobbies, style, and so on. - [[Pierre Bourdieu]] in [[Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste]] argued that people at the top of their social hierarchies communicate their status by converting economic capital to cultural capital—his original term. Leisurely activities with no practical utility are symbols of high social standing. - [[Amotz Zahavi]] in the 1970s developed the idea of "[[Costly Signaling|costly signaling]]" from animals that can only exhibit certain traits only if they are healthy. For humans, there are certain costly signals that only those with great amounts of disposable resources could afford—signaling their economic capacities. ### Luxury belief as physical possessions Much of how we treat our physical possessions can be extended to beliefs. We accord more value to what we own compared to what we don't. I would value a pen more if its mine compared to the same pen that is not mine. The attribution of more value to one's own beliefs is the endowment effect. Commitment to beliefs also signal reliability as a social ally to others. There is also the black sheep effect where people are less willing to punish in-group members when guilt is uncertain. But if guilt is certain, we would be more willing to punish the in-group members than out-group members. We react more harshly towards betrayal than objection—apostasy is worse than unbelief. Obstinance also serves as a protective function against been duped, as the threshold for adapting new beliefs is high. ### Social Brain Hypothesis The social brain hypothesis states that our brain is evolved not to solve technical problems, but social problems. The primary function of the brain is to get along with others, and that means everything we decide to do is tied with social rewards and punishments. Luxury beliefs spread by us adapting the beliefs of the prestigious people. And that also means highly prestigious people might be more manipulatable as long as the manipulation is coming from the right sources due to reputation loss aversion. [[Keith Stanovich]] argued that highly intelligent people are less likely to realize they have derived their beliefs from their group because they fit with their own psychological propensities and temperament. ### Intra-elite Conflict Intra-elite conflict is this idea by [[Peter Turchin]] about much of revolution and change are elite aspirants—fairly educated and affluent—challenging the elites, and there is always more elite aspirants than available elite positions. People who are status-seeking are more likely to support political violence. --- Back to: [[PA Psychology of Social Status]] Previous Note: [[Status Games]]