High Social Status

Post Reply New Topic

No I did not, or did not mean that intent.
An individual can be given a certain position of social status (by others), no matter if that individual is simply embedded within context of hierarchy, with no desire or intention of navigating the hierarchal structure.
That is the decision of other individuals in the environment, much like how you projected the article's definition of social status onto me simply because I'm posting information on a forum.

I was amused by how the article used an absolute description of all humans "desire" to navigate hierarchal structures.
That method may have been used intentionally by the writer to gain more attention to the article by stimulating discussions like this.

Further, having a medium to communicate information is not the same thing as a "need" for someone to listen to you, or the need to acquire a higher position in hierarchy. That would set up a situation that generates a schema called "appeal to authority", which is a logical fallacy. Someone can communicate 9 correct informative statements and still be incorrect on number ten, so it does not logically follow.
However, communicating the information is part of the process of refining information so it is more correct.

This brings me back to what you are trying to do. Can you clarify if you're trying to tell me something I posted is wrong? and explain how so I can understand? or if you're just saying that you "feel" that what is posted here is in a logical conflict - hypocrisy - pot calling kettle black ?

Do you see what you describe as the article's "operational definition" of social status to be a type of "catch all" so that if people talk about the article, or talk about social status, then they are automatically engaging in social status?

Also, you never answered my question as to why you are trying to "impact" people?

I hope you can clarify before this becomes more confusing.

I believe there are many humans who do not desire to navigate social hierarchal structures, - that is to use manipulation of what others think about them to move up in the ranks of social status. Social status is based on what others think about you, and this means one would have to change (manipulate) what others think in order to navigate within that structure. I think I'm explaining this as logically as I can here. What else can I do?

I also believe there are many humans who can communicate information outside of the filters of identity. That is to say that they prefer to, even though they are embedded within a context of identity based communication. They lack the "desire" for social status, but are forced to participate in status based activities due to the surround environment.

Is this so hard to believe?

I wanted to add to this something that is very relevant to the group of people on this forum.
Concepts, no matter if we do not believe them, do affect us because other people in our environment do believe them, and they behave in ways that directly affect us. They are "controlled" by their shared imagination. I call them mind viruses.
These concepts are often responsible for what we call group dynamics or mob behavior and the controlling algorithms often reside in the subconscious where they are hidden from common view and can go unnoticed.

This situation we are in being affected by concepts believed by others is what I describe as being embedded within another context that we had rather not participate in.

To me this is a blend of desires/esteem (respect, admiration and social value) and a need/belonging (voluntary deference), but both are commonly described as a psychological need and are combined under the one category in the article. Does anyone else view them as separate categories?

This need (voluntary deference) is dependent on having secured basic needs, which can be a challenge if you are socio-economicly disadvantaged. I imagine that the struggle for *control when you do not have lower level needs in place, creates a permanent stress, which can of course be detrimental to overall health and well being.

The majority of ordinary people (NTs) that care a lot about social status are very susceptible to becoming what I call "proto-psychopaths", which means that they can temporarily behave as a psychopath would while they are in a certain environment. Most would deny that they would do this, but they turn out to be wrong when they find themselves inside that certain environment.





I agree that you are correct, but I want to point out that I use the term "identity" in a way almost opposite to how you use the term "self". On the surface one would think they are the same thing, but apparently they are not at all.
I think that any individual can have a self, but there must be other people around (a group) for one to have or need an identity. The identity is how one navigates social structures and how one gets power from the outside as you said.

I have heard psychopaths describe themselves as "selfless". At first I thought that they were implying that they cared only for the well-being of those around them, but that is clearly not true at all. What you are saying about psychopaths and narcissists is true. They need to manipulate other people around them. They have no self, which I think goes right along with having no conscious, guilt, remorse, etc...

They (psychopaths & narcissists) do have identities, and are exceptionally good at navigating social structures.

I wanted to add this so as not to confuse people with the use of the words "identity" and "self". I was confused by them at first. I also see that the term "self-referencing" would be more accurately called "identity-referencing".
I'll try to always make that distinction in the future.

Yes, I see them as quite separate. Both may be (usually) tied directly to the chemical reward pathway in the brain as a driving mechanism that generates the "desire". However, with many of us here experiencing various levels of anhedonia, also tied directly to that chemical reward mechanism, some of us would lack some or all of those desires. Anhedonia is often not total or all-encompassing. As an example, I can say that I do get a chemical reward for gaining and sharing information effectively, which could be described in other terms as effectively "connecting" with another person or people. Therefore, having a medium to do this in, and other people that can possibly "connect" is handy.
I also get a chemical reward for consuming junk food. Neither case implies a reward for social status.
I may just as well go without eating junk food or having anyone listen to me, because there would be no subsequent manipulation (usage) of that status with the intent of navigating social structures.
The fact that some status may be assigned to me by others in my environment is beyond my control. Also, sharing information or having people listen to you can just as often result in rejection or a lowering of the social status that is being assigned to you by those in your environment. It all goes back to intent, and that most often goes back to the incentive, which is that chemical reward.

You might say that one would then enjoy the status of "rebel", but then that goes back to may statement about this being a "catch-all" situation due to being embedded within a society obsessed with identity.
In the case or context of being embedded within our society, a quote comes to mind.
"No information can be shared without also having a value judgment applied" ~ Jacob Bronowski

Basically, it appears that one cannot communicate the fact that they don't care about social status unless it's within the context of social status. One would have to opt out of communicating at all, which would allow no means of anyone to realize that there are people that don't care about social status. Thus the "catch all' situation proves itself correct by default. I believe that to be the real circular reasoning.

Diogenes the Cynic would have vehemently disagreed - quite possibly by barking and snarling at you until you went away.

He was also, according to the Stoics, one of only two men in the entirety of their history who might possibly have been sane (Socrates being the other).

Not to make this a semantics discussion, but I think it depends on how you define "status" and also what you think of as having "high status."

I think of social status primarily in terms of citizenship and having the ability to participate in an economy (monetary or not). In other words, in comes down to being able to work, hire, earn, buy, sell, receive, trade, barter, etc. For the vast majority of people in the world, survival depends on social status.

When I saw how the article defined it...

Status is defined as respect or admiration, voluntary deference (people willingly listening to you), and social value (possessing characteristics that others want to emulate), according to lead study author Cameron Anderson, PhD.

...my thought was that these things are NOT social status, but rather things that are artificially conflated with status, because people believe these may grant them more economic power.

I think you have that backwards though, at least chronologically. The definition of status provided would apply even to pre-monetary economy societies. The economic power you're talking about is an abstraction (or reification, if you like) of the sort of status initially described.

Social status.
What it really is:


link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/yo ... ir-leaders

Not sure if I follow your post, the way it is worded...are you referring to my definition of status, or the article's definition? Having it backwards was kind of my point. I think modern society has it backwards.

If physical survival is an immediate priority (ie, if a group is starving, or desperately needs shelter) then an outsider who could offer what the group needs would have automatic status within the group. It would have nothing to do with respecting or admiring that person, or liking them or wanting to emulate them...those things might come as a byproduct of the person having status, but not necessarily. If the person did not have something practical to offer, simply being respected or admired wouldn't establish status.

When physical survival is not an immediate priority, people have more time to satisfy their emotional needs, such as wanting to be admired...but the idea that this confers any real social status is just an illusion. If people get hungry enough and desperate enough, it doesn't matter how much they like a person, they might still eat that person.

The article said A implies B.

The thread then largely went onto people saying 'I am A but I don't imply C' and then turned into a discussion about C, all the while acting like C was the B talked about in the article.

I have no qualms or issues with this being about C EXCEPT that it came from something where people thought B was C.

I -cannot- explain it more clearly than this.

Lol, I followed you, but I think you missed a + symbol and an = symbol in there someplace. I agree though the topic got slightly off target, but eh, it's the internet and s**t happens.

I did not want olympiadis to think I had been ignoring the request.

I actually have no formal philosophical training, although I did get an A in discrete structures, which is the only course that actually TAUGHT me why mathematical proofs were actually proof.

You could clearly define the variables as you're using them.

A is people, B is social status as defined by the article, C is social status that is using any definition that was NOT defined by the article.

A = clear enough. I take it as they mean "all humans".

B = defined by artcle. By one , some, or all requisites as stated by the article?

Are you saying they have created their own definition of "social status" and limited it to their terms? One, some, or all?
And you're saying that it's then assumed that any other interpretation of "social status" as it is commonly known to the public is exempt ?

C = Seems plenty close enough to me unless you say the definition requires ALL of the requisites listed in the article.

One of the assumptions made here is that "what other people think" (their approval) is functionally equal to a "social status" within the framework of this discussion. The article does use "high standing in one's social circle, profession, or society" as functionally equal to "social status". It's not that big of a stretch for me to realize that those things are determined by what other people think. So, the replies here are making sense to me.

Is this for the sake of nitpicking, or to say you think some claims are hypocritical, or that many of us have simply misinterpreted the article in comparison to how you have?

Personally, I really believe that many people here would choose to opt out of the current social structure, but are simple not in a position to do so effectively.