I would also like to see the top-level post, but there are a couple problems with this definition. First of all, if we’re talking about how much influence people have, it would be clearer to use a word like, say, “influence”. Second, status usually suggests some element of what people think of you, which is related to though not the same as influence. One can be highly influential but poorly-regarded, and vice versa. Note that in this sense status can be multi-dimensional: for instance, people can regard you as a good person to spend time with, but think poorly of your intelligence.
This is a good point, thank you. I have an intuition that while status is the ability to control the group, you can have influence without having status, although you cannot have status without having influence. That points to an flaw in my definition, one which I should resolve somehow before making that post.
I should probably note that I think that there are actually two different terms to which we refer when we say “status”. Status1 (or “influence”) is the ability to control the group, so it’s the one I was talking about above. Status2 is stuff like official titles or other considerations that cause a situation where it’s expected that people grant you Status1. I believe that people liking you would fall under Status2.
Is that true? A few counterexamples come to mind, such as figurehead monarchs and Paris Hilton. Or is the assumption that their status is such that they could ‘control the group’ to some degree if they so chose, even without any formally recognized authority?
I would also like to see the top-level post, but there are a couple problems with this definition. First of all, if we’re talking about how much influence people have, it would be clearer to use a word like, say, “influence”. Second, status usually suggests some element of what people think of you, which is related to though not the same as influence. One can be highly influential but poorly-regarded, and vice versa. Note that in this sense status can be multi-dimensional: for instance, people can regard you as a good person to spend time with, but think poorly of your intelligence.
This is a good point, thank you. I have an intuition that while status is the ability to control the group, you can have influence without having status, although you cannot have status without having influence. That points to an flaw in my definition, one which I should resolve somehow before making that post.
I should probably note that I think that there are actually two different terms to which we refer when we say “status”. Status1 (or “influence”) is the ability to control the group, so it’s the one I was talking about above. Status2 is stuff like official titles or other considerations that cause a situation where it’s expected that people grant you Status1. I believe that people liking you would fall under Status2.
See here for a recent mention of an example.
That’s a good example, especially since it’s different from the one I was thinking about. Thanks.
Is that true? A few counterexamples come to mind, such as figurehead monarchs and Paris Hilton. Or is the assumption that their status is such that they could ‘control the group’ to some degree if they so chose, even without any formally recognized authority?
Good point, let me reword: you cannot have status1 without having influence.
(I need to find better names for these. Status1 could be I-Status, for “Influence”. Status2… P-Status for “Position”, maybe.)