Thanks for the post. I feel that status is not difficult (for me) to assess in a group, but I appreciate your pointing out the lack of a solid and predictive definition.
I think that PJ Eby’s comment has been closest so far, but that it could be more specific. My best definition so far is:
“The ability to determine the social interaction”. (Excluding physical interactions, those having additional complexity). By “determine the interaction” I refer roughly to the ability to control the topic of conversation, and plans of the group.
Everything else discussed feeds into this, and this in turn often feeds into those same things. I.e. Having self-esteem or wealth may help you with this, and having this may help you gain self-esteem and wealth. Extrication is difficult.
At the same time, none of the other factors are required in all interactions. You may have someone who has very low self-esteem, at least generally, yet is the expert on the original Transformers show on a web forum, and has sway there (and acts confidently with sub-communications). You can have a wealthy and famous scientist, who in a group of “regular folks” is extremely diffident. Having the ability to determine the interaction without ANY of the factors discussed (including confidence) seems exceedingly unlikely.
I’ve been viewing status as a system which resides mostly in the unconscious of the participants in an interaction. Everyone is assessing theirs and others’ ability to determine the social interaction, for that group in that situation. These unconscious systems react by controlling the voice, posture, etc, and act as cues for others regarding that person’s own assessments. It is simply too difficult for the conscious mind to quickly handle all these assessments and signals.
The group usually will come to a group assessment, based on the assessments of each member. E.g. if everyone else is treating someone as high status (able to determine the interaction), you are more prone to make the same assessment. If someone acts like they have this ability, your unconscious is thinking that they probably have this ability, and will be more likely to react like they do. The system is there in order to quickly and effectively determine who leads a group, and over time the most capable members of a group will tend to assess their own ability the highest and project the strongest signals (conjecture). It also displays who has the most “resources” (such as ability, supporters, food, and furs). I’m doubtful that currency and prestigious specialty professions have been around long enough for us to adapt specifically to them in an evolutionary sense.
Factors such as class, wealth, and prestige affect how strongly you assess your ability to determine the interaction. When visible to others, depending on the person they may affect how strongly they assess your ability to do this. Apparent knowledge of a domain helps to provide this ability in a given situation. Being interesting, funny, or beautiful also helps to provide this ability. Though even in these cases it would still be possible to be ignored, if the majority of participants didn’t assess you as having the ability to control the interaction, for whatever reason. (Beauty might take you far, but beauty without knowledge won’t serve you that well in an esoteric scientific discussion with many participants).
A different kind of “status” would be when visible wealth or prestigious attracts others to a person, based on more conscious preferences and assessments of benefit, separate from actually caring what that person says. You might have a billionaire who couldn’t for the life of her convince a group where they should eat for lunch without paying for them, but well, she COULD pay for them. Of course, a person could have both types of status.
The assessment of ability to determine the interaction varies based on situation (a bunch of fellow scientists vs a bunch of attractive women, perhaps), but the underlying system changes on the time scale of any largely unconscious process. It may “have a rule” that when someone compliments you on your ability, your’e more able to determine the interaction, but it’s hard to change those rules, such as “you don’t know what you (can) say around a bunch of attractive guys”. If the system were easy to “game”, it wouldn’t make for a very good way to actually organize groups. I know of some very smart people who hate working in groups, partly because unconsciously they don’t currently assess or project a high ability to control the interaction, and are therefore unable to get people to listen to their good ideas.
Relating to PUA literature “shit tests”, people can test others’ signals (and assessments) of their own ability to control the interaction. If you apply a little pressure and their assessment changes, it wasn’t that strong. If they still are convinced they have that ability, it makes it seem more likely that they really do, (and have the skills and resources to back it up).
I don’t have much in the way of references or data, my hope is that if what I’ve written makes sense, your experiences with people will corroborate it. I agree that it seems unlikely that humans would lack any dominance theory, and it seems like we have one, albeit a complex and potentially loose one.
Thanks for the post. I feel that status is not difficult (for me) to assess in a group, but I appreciate your pointing out the lack of a solid and predictive definition.
I think that PJ Eby’s comment has been closest so far, but that it could be more specific. My best definition so far is:
“The ability to determine the social interaction”. (Excluding physical interactions, those having additional complexity). By “determine the interaction” I refer roughly to the ability to control the topic of conversation, and plans of the group.
Everything else discussed feeds into this, and this in turn often feeds into those same things. I.e. Having self-esteem or wealth may help you with this, and having this may help you gain self-esteem and wealth. Extrication is difficult.
At the same time, none of the other factors are required in all interactions. You may have someone who has very low self-esteem, at least generally, yet is the expert on the original Transformers show on a web forum, and has sway there (and acts confidently with sub-communications). You can have a wealthy and famous scientist, who in a group of “regular folks” is extremely diffident. Having the ability to determine the interaction without ANY of the factors discussed (including confidence) seems exceedingly unlikely.
I’ve been viewing status as a system which resides mostly in the unconscious of the participants in an interaction. Everyone is assessing theirs and others’ ability to determine the social interaction, for that group in that situation. These unconscious systems react by controlling the voice, posture, etc, and act as cues for others regarding that person’s own assessments. It is simply too difficult for the conscious mind to quickly handle all these assessments and signals.
The group usually will come to a group assessment, based on the assessments of each member. E.g. if everyone else is treating someone as high status (able to determine the interaction), you are more prone to make the same assessment. If someone acts like they have this ability, your unconscious is thinking that they probably have this ability, and will be more likely to react like they do. The system is there in order to quickly and effectively determine who leads a group, and over time the most capable members of a group will tend to assess their own ability the highest and project the strongest signals (conjecture). It also displays who has the most “resources” (such as ability, supporters, food, and furs). I’m doubtful that currency and prestigious specialty professions have been around long enough for us to adapt specifically to them in an evolutionary sense.
Factors such as class, wealth, and prestige affect how strongly you assess your ability to determine the interaction. When visible to others, depending on the person they may affect how strongly they assess your ability to do this. Apparent knowledge of a domain helps to provide this ability in a given situation. Being interesting, funny, or beautiful also helps to provide this ability. Though even in these cases it would still be possible to be ignored, if the majority of participants didn’t assess you as having the ability to control the interaction, for whatever reason. (Beauty might take you far, but beauty without knowledge won’t serve you that well in an esoteric scientific discussion with many participants).
A different kind of “status” would be when visible wealth or prestigious attracts others to a person, based on more conscious preferences and assessments of benefit, separate from actually caring what that person says. You might have a billionaire who couldn’t for the life of her convince a group where they should eat for lunch without paying for them, but well, she COULD pay for them. Of course, a person could have both types of status.
The assessment of ability to determine the interaction varies based on situation (a bunch of fellow scientists vs a bunch of attractive women, perhaps), but the underlying system changes on the time scale of any largely unconscious process. It may “have a rule” that when someone compliments you on your ability, your’e more able to determine the interaction, but it’s hard to change those rules, such as “you don’t know what you (can) say around a bunch of attractive guys”. If the system were easy to “game”, it wouldn’t make for a very good way to actually organize groups. I know of some very smart people who hate working in groups, partly because unconsciously they don’t currently assess or project a high ability to control the interaction, and are therefore unable to get people to listen to their good ideas.
Relating to PUA literature “shit tests”, people can test others’ signals (and assessments) of their own ability to control the interaction. If you apply a little pressure and their assessment changes, it wasn’t that strong. If they still are convinced they have that ability, it makes it seem more likely that they really do, (and have the skills and resources to back it up).
I don’t have much in the way of references or data, my hope is that if what I’ve written makes sense, your experiences with people will corroborate it. I agree that it seems unlikely that humans would lack any dominance theory, and it seems like we have one, albeit a complex and potentially loose one.