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.
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.