Men have comparable status competitions and nastiness it just isn’t about clothes.
Part of Zaine’s question is whether this is actually the case. There’s an aphorism: “Men insult each other and don’t mean it. Women compliment each other and don’t mean it.” Do groups of men who are friends engage zero-sum status games? What do those look like?
Do groups of men who are friends engage zero-sum status games? What do those look like?
Aren’t most status games zero-sum, though? Would I be right to assume that you meant the kind of status games where the men of Group Y are trying to raise their status at the expense of each other rather than those not in their in-group?
If so, almost any form of social interaction in a given group can have zero-sum status game elements. As an example, the simple act of sharing information can be construed as promoting one’s superior knowledge and thus showing the other guy up.
You mentioned the saying “Men insult each other and don’t mean it. Women compliment each other and don’t mean it.” That’s definitely a working example of such games. Here’s an extract from Duels and Duets: Why Men and Women Talk So Differently by John L. Locke, via Google Books:
Although duels abound in adolescence, and in the oral cultures that anthropologists love to study, they may erupt wherever competitive men congregate. Playful insulting occurs everywhere that men go. In the early 1970s, anthropologist Frank Manning spent some time in a black bar (or “social club”) in Bermuda. One thing that stood out about the male patrons was their insulting, especially the artful and friendly way that they did it. Since there was always a responsive audience of men and women in the club, Manning thought these verbal exchanges could “be viewed as spectator games and public performances,” opportunities for the participants “to display their personality and style for the benefits of an audience as well as their competitors.”
While Manning was observing the black duelers in Bermuda, E. E. LeMasters was busily at work in a white working-class tavern in southern Wisconsin. LeMasters, a sociology professor by day and patron of the “Oasis” by night, noticed a great deal of banter in his natural laboratory. In fact, some regular patrons light-heartedly attacked each other more or less continuously. In the Oasis, social success was dependant on men’s “ability to ‘dish it out’ in the rapid-fire exchange called ‘joshing,‘” wrote LeMasters. “You have to have a quick retort, and preferably one that puts you ‘one up’ on your opponent. People who can’t compete in the game lose status.”
Do groups of men who are friends engage zero-sum status games? What do those look like?
Yes. Particularly popular ones are known as “sports.”
Note the asymmetry between men and women- men compete both as groups and as individuals. Women generally only compete as individuals- so males have a flavor of camaraderie that women rarely do.
I don’t believe athletic competition is zero-sum. The status gain of the winners isn’t offset by a status loss of the losers. In fact, the losers often come out with a gain in status, assuming they play well.
Another way to see that it’s positive-sum is as follows: A close-fought game results in more status for both sides than does a rout. If the game were zero-sum, that status had to come from somewhere. But in fact, if the losers play better, both sides come out better than if the losers lost, badly.
Conclusion: athletics and similar competition is positive-sum, and the size of the total status gain depends on the talent being displayed.
Status is relative by its essence. So, if some forms of direct competition seem to raise the status of both competitors, somebody else has to lose. It only needn’t be one of the direct participants in the match. You’re right that both competitors may gain status if they both play well, but the very meaning of “well” is decided from comparison with other players in the relevant pool; if you play better than they usually do, your status grows at their expense.
Also, it is not universally true that close-fought results get positive status change to both competitors. Close win against a low-status outsider is often a status loss for the winner, even if the loser played well.
Yes, I agree with all this. But the original claim was “sports are a zero-sum status game”. And I think you and I are both saying that this isn’t so—competition is sometimes positive and sometimes negative- sum for the participants.
While social status, at the society-wide level is necessarily zero sum, the participants in the activity might all come out ahead of the bystanders—or behind, perhaps, if the sport is disreputable.
Somewhat related: exactly one of the groups of male friends I’m a member of has/had a very clear, completely self-appointed omega. This weirded me out; I think he thought he wasn’t as smart as some of us, but he’s hardly stupid (currently doing PhD research in engineering!) and a very nice guy.
Part of Zaine’s question is whether this is actually the case. There’s an aphorism: “Men insult each other and don’t mean it. Women compliment each other and don’t mean it.” Do groups of men who are friends engage zero-sum status games? What do those look like?
Aren’t most status games zero-sum, though? Would I be right to assume that you meant the kind of status games where the men of Group Y are trying to raise their status at the expense of each other rather than those not in their in-group?
If so, almost any form of social interaction in a given group can have zero-sum status game elements. As an example, the simple act of sharing information can be construed as promoting one’s superior knowledge and thus showing the other guy up.
You mentioned the saying “Men insult each other and don’t mean it. Women compliment each other and don’t mean it.” That’s definitely a working example of such games. Here’s an extract from Duels and Duets: Why Men and Women Talk So Differently by John L. Locke, via Google Books:
Yes. Particularly popular ones are known as “sports.”
Note the asymmetry between men and women- men compete both as groups and as individuals. Women generally only compete as individuals- so males have a flavor of camaraderie that women rarely do.
I don’t believe athletic competition is zero-sum. The status gain of the winners isn’t offset by a status loss of the losers. In fact, the losers often come out with a gain in status, assuming they play well.
Another way to see that it’s positive-sum is as follows: A close-fought game results in more status for both sides than does a rout. If the game were zero-sum, that status had to come from somewhere. But in fact, if the losers play better, both sides come out better than if the losers lost, badly.
Conclusion: athletics and similar competition is positive-sum, and the size of the total status gain depends on the talent being displayed.
Status is relative by its essence. So, if some forms of direct competition seem to raise the status of both competitors, somebody else has to lose. It only needn’t be one of the direct participants in the match. You’re right that both competitors may gain status if they both play well, but the very meaning of “well” is decided from comparison with other players in the relevant pool; if you play better than they usually do, your status grows at their expense.
Also, it is not universally true that close-fought results get positive status change to both competitors. Close win against a low-status outsider is often a status loss for the winner, even if the loser played well.
Yes, I agree with all this. But the original claim was “sports are a zero-sum status game”. And I think you and I are both saying that this isn’t so—competition is sometimes positive and sometimes negative- sum for the participants.
While social status, at the society-wide level is necessarily zero sum, the participants in the activity might all come out ahead of the bystanders—or behind, perhaps, if the sport is disreputable.
Somewhat related: exactly one of the groups of male friends I’m a member of has/had a very clear, completely self-appointed omega. This weirded me out; I think he thought he wasn’t as smart as some of us, but he’s hardly stupid (currently doing PhD research in engineering!) and a very nice guy.
Curious how different an omega and an Omega are.
We now have a clue about Omega’s backstory.