I don’t generally think about status, so I didn’t catch that one.
You went through the process of creating a protocol for optimizing affection and status considerations didn’t cross your mind? Wow! I can’t decide whether that state of mind would be relaxing, completely crippling or perhaps a little of both.
I don’t usually find my own version of status-obliviousness* disabling, but I think this is partly because I am surrounded by friendly others who will use words to tell me things.
*Anna thinks I am “orthogonal to status”, and thinks this should be more widely known, because it would raise my status. I think this is funny. (I cannot tell the difference between deliberately aped high- and low-status body language, and apparently I handle things that are opportunities to make status moves one way or the other in unrelated ways without noticing.)
Where? (Is reporting something that someone else said because I think it funny some kind of status bid and therefore ironic?)
No, I was actually finding it ironic that in this circumstance it was Anna in the role of the status guru, describing how you handle opportunities to make status moves one way or the other without noticing. It is not quite the area that I would have described as Anna’s greatest strength. It wouldn’t have seemed at all out of place if you were making the description of her.
Being aware of status has caused me to either 1. make status-stealing moves more often or 2. be more aware and conscious of making status-stealing movies, with the practical upshot of both being that social interactions have become a little less enjoyable for other people.
How did you study status? My biggest single source of information has been Keith Johnstone’s book Impro (although I haven’t actually done any improv, too scary), and I started liking social interactions more than before. They feel less confusing and arbitrary; more like a game that can be mutually enjoyable, and in which both participants can “raise their score.”
This hasn’t been a problem for me, so my experience doesn’t include the benefit of understanding social interaction more. It seems likely that if I had been confused, I’d have recommended learning about status instead of recommending against it.
The Office according to The Office, and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.
These only really apply to organized hierarchies, though. When people talk about “status” mattering in human interactions, they mean a combination of perceived power, influence, impressiveness and the like, plus instinctual dominance-submissiveness interactions. Formal hierarchies in a complex organization are a distinct matter, although they do influence status in the former sense.
You went through the process of creating a protocol for optimizing affection and status considerations didn’t cross your mind? Wow! I can’t decide whether that state of mind would be relaxing, completely crippling or perhaps a little of both.
I don’t usually find my own version of status-obliviousness* disabling, but I think this is partly because I am surrounded by friendly others who will use words to tell me things.
*Anna thinks I am “orthogonal to status”, and thinks this should be more widely known, because it would raise my status. I think this is funny. (I cannot tell the difference between deliberately aped high- and low-status body language, and apparently I handle things that are opportunities to make status moves one way or the other in unrelated ways without noticing.)
There is a certain amount of irony in here somewhere.
Where? (Is reporting something that someone else said because I think it funny some kind of status bid and therefore ironic?)
No, I was actually finding it ironic that in this circumstance it was Anna in the role of the status guru, describing how you handle opportunities to make status moves one way or the other without noticing. It is not quite the area that I would have described as Anna’s greatest strength. It wouldn’t have seemed at all out of place if you were making the description of her.
Anna’s is the phrasing; others have pointed out situations in which I have not-statused.
Status is what other people think of you. Anna is an other person.
Edit: Or not!
I think I will have to study this “status” thing a bit more.
I recommend against it, if you’re capable of denying your curiosity here. I don’t think I’m better off for having studied it.
Why do you recommend against it?
Being aware of status has caused me to either 1. make status-stealing moves more often or 2. be more aware and conscious of making status-stealing movies, with the practical upshot of both being that social interactions have become a little less enjoyable for other people.
Well, don’t do that then.
My kingdom for complete causal control over my actions!
That can be an easy excuse for not doing that then.
How did you study status? My biggest single source of information has been Keith Johnstone’s book Impro (although I haven’t actually done any improv, too scary), and I started liking social interactions more than before. They feel less confusing and arbitrary; more like a game that can be mutually enjoyable, and in which both participants can “raise their score.”
This hasn’t been a problem for me, so my experience doesn’t include the benefit of understanding social interaction more. It seems likely that if I had been confused, I’d have recommended learning about status instead of recommending against it.
As for how I studied it: Overcoming Bias posts on the matter, The Office according to The Office, and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power.
These only really apply to organized hierarchies, though. When people talk about “status” mattering in human interactions, they mean a combination of perceived power, influence, impressiveness and the like, plus instinctual dominance-submissiveness interactions. Formal hierarchies in a complex organization are a distinct matter, although they do influence status in the former sense.
also being depressed about human interaction.