Almost everything we buy do own is about status we want for ourselves or show to others. Fake iphones could be used as status symbol for wealth in some parts of the world. In others it could be employment at a FAANG company, name in a research paper, false degree or membership at an exclusive club. All are different sorts of status symbols why we need them is because humans are basically animals and these status symbols for whatever reason signify strength which we feel we need instinctively even if not actively pursued.
This just doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like you're projecting your own motivation on to others.
> Employment at a FAANG company.
I want to get paid more, and work on hard/interesting problems.
> Name on a research paper
I want credit for my work of course (why would you go out of your way to not have your name on a paper you contributed to), but impressing others is not the reason I would be in research (again - solving interesting/hard problems and hopefully making the world a little bit better would probably be the motivation if that was my career)
> False degree
I wouldn't want this.
> Membership at an exclusive club
Presumably this exclusive club does something together that I'm interested in, or at least has members that I want to talk to about something I'm interested in. (Or maybe we just go out to eat socially, that sounds fun).
Of course signalling status is useful as a means to an end. (E.g. I would want to appear as a competent/successful developer while applying for said FAANG job, or as a wealthy person while applying for a business loan). But I gain little joy from status in and of itself.
This is where you're projecting. You're answering my question by referring to what you want only.
> is about status we want for ourselves or show to others...why we need them is because...signify strength which we feel we need
There is a symmetry here that may be escaping you, that I am not you and don't share these feelings. And I've found that many people not only don't understand that, they actually can't. Like I said, it's almost as if I'm missing concepts others have.
Even in that case, the answer to your question is trivially: other people place value on the impractical, ephemeral aspects of the world, that you don't.
The problem is not that he's projected values onto you, but rather that you're failing to empathize with others (because your original question was essentially "why do people care about it?"; not "why should I care about it).
And if you assume that some or even many people do care about status symbols, and we have evidence of it in that these status markets do exist, then it becomes trivial to see where the value lies.
If you want to get into why do people place values on status symbols, the simple answer is that as a society we primarily communicate by such means; we build internal representations and assumptions and initially learn the value systems of other people based on the initial perception -- this may prove wrong, and may be corrected in longer conversation, but the vast majority of people we see we will never engage with thoroughly enough to use language as the primary basis of communication.
We need something quicker, and often we need a good filter, because we simply do not have the time, energy or interest to engage with every individual properly. It is extremely useful to be able to identify someone interesting in a crowd/party, and it is optimal to spend the majority of your time with people who interest you.
And of course there are many symbols and flags one might be interested in -- gold watches and iphones to signify wealth and prestige; reputation and parties to signify social connections; references to TV, movies, artists etc to signify cultural background and interests; clothing to signify class
> rather that you're failing to empathize with others
Spot on, I don't get it.
> It is extremely useful to be able to identify someone interesting in a crowd/party, and it is optimal to spend the majority of your time with people who interest you.
The latter part of the sentence, sure, the former part, no. Having a fancy phone/expensive says precisely zero to me about someone's capacity to be interesting.
> there are many symbols and flags one might be interested in...
And with all that, you've just embedded my sense of bafflement! I have little and the things I care about are ephemeral but not tangible. I guess I'll have to thank you for trying but must concede defeat.
I'm going to assume you agree that people, in general, assume certain things based on how other's look. We see dundee hat, and assume an australian. We see a star trek shirt, and assume they like star trek. Etc.
The singular direction of assumption I think, is obviously true.
But this mode of communication has two parties -- you, and the person/people looking at you.
Once we realize that other people are assuming things about us, based on what we have, wear and show, then the next step is to realize we can shape their assumptions, by doing two things:
1. Understand what things lead to what assumptions
2. Decide our target assumption, and change what we show to lead to those assumptions
So, like a bird with a mating call, we can signal to our peers what interests and goals we have, which they can choose to follow to reach us.
And like a bird with a mating call, which has certain qualities and factors governing fitness of the bird, we can be better or worse and producing stronger signals, and a poorly constructed signal can instead work against us -- If I want to be known as a nerd, I better not confuse star trek and star wars (even in honest forgetting) lest I expose a new signal, of a fake nerd.
And vice versa, we follow the mating calls to those that interest you. The iphone tells you nothing -- its not a signal you'll follow. For someone else, it might be a valuable signal. But for you, its not, and that's perfectly fine. You listen to other calls. Like perhaps, those that signal a preference towards "practical" thinking and needs.
They didn't make claims about themselves only - they claimed that everyone is motivated by this ("we"). Or at least that was my interpretation of the comment.
