12 ms·

What is Social Status?

168 points by jseliger 3y ago

oofnik 3y ago
I think the author tried to pack a little too much into this article, but it's an interesting topic and his observations ring true. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who successfully climbed the social hierarchy from dysfunctional foster childhood to Ivy league deserves every ounce prestige he earned.
- Animats 3y ago
  > I think the author tried to pack a little too much into this article... That's a problem with blog posts. A dated, but amusing book length expansion on this topic is "Class", by Paul Fussell.
madaxe_again 3y ago
“ Humans don’t like bullies. ” Uh. All recorded history would suggest otherwise. Humans love bullies, strongmen, charlatans who promise panaceas at the wave of a stick. What humans actually don’t like are bullies outside of the current established and expected hierarchy - bullies that threaten their bully. Prestige and dominance are an utter time-sink, and the reward curve is hideously steep - unless you are at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy, you grind to stay afloat - whereas at the top, prestige and dominance magnetically attract to you. I think a lot of what we take as being the default condition isn’t - we see all these behaviours and we assume it’s something innate to us and other primates - but I think it’s cultural and Malthusian, rather than a hard-baked desire for primacy. The hard-baked desire is for survival - and prestige play is a minmax route to this for most people living in a society - it’s easier than setting up your own society. With blackjack. And… Anyway. Ramblings. My perspective emerges from stepping sideways off the highway of life: I once strove for status, and garnered no small amount. Didn’t do a damned thing for me - the hierarchy may as well be infinite. I have found that I enjoy having less than zero status, as there’s nothing to lose, no plays to make, no maintenance payments to be made - here, everyone thinks I am a pauper, possibly mentally defective, definitely helplessly living in squalor off the land like our ancestors. The reality is somewhat different, but I’m content for others to think otherwise. I spent far too much of my life being dogged by high expectations. I’m a sample of one, but I can’t help but try to examine why I feel as I do - and I think the answer is that I derive my security entirely outside of interpersonal relationships - I don’t owe anyone anything, nor they me, and I need nothing from them. So… is status “real”? I doubt it. I think it’s just a manifestation of fear and insecurity, and a primal need for a parent figure who can protect and guide. Perhaps the latter - parents - are also an important part of the need for social hierarchy, as they’re also an element I lacked, being largely raised by impersonal, militarised institutions.
- jychang 3y ago
  Strong agree. Like you said, the parenting aspect is crucial- that’s been well established in mainstream psychology for a long time now. The opposite of insecurity is trust (either in oneself or others), and this is difficult to develop later in life. There is research into this nowadays, anywhere from cognitive science psychology to MDMA assisted PTSD treatments to develop self-trust, but conclusive understanding still evades humanity at this point in time. I do think most people who are very intelligent in terms of IQ, but have other issues… end up in a similar situation as you. Smart enough to overthink and realize where they exist in society, not smart enough to solve the problem when the solution is supposed to be handed to them from their ancestors. That’s not an insult by the way- Einstein was smart enough to create relativity, but he had algebra and calculus etc handed to him from his ancestors. I doubt Einstein would have invented relativity from scratch. I wonder if it’s possible to capture the key essence of parenting and re-teach people critical information that’s supposed to be taught in childhood. We all know about language acquisition and the critical period, after which if a child is not taught, they end up like Genie (the feral child, born 1957). But I suspect there are other social skills that are supposed to be taught, but commonly are not taught by parents, or simply unable to be taught if the parents do not exist.
  - achenet 3y ago
    the book The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron kinda does this for some things. It did help me a lot, I guess you could say it taught me the art of "self parenting".
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  I think it creates social instability when power becomes too decoupled from hierarchy: That’s the whole point of a hierarchy, to mediate disputes other than the raw exercise of power — and conflicts become sudden and unexpected if insufficient status is granted to those able to wield power. This is a corollary to your point about outsider bullies; if someone strong isn’t integrated into the hierarchy, violence isn’t predictable and hence survival less assured. Outside of that, I can’t say that “The Game” has held any particular appeal to me — and I dislike many of the status seekers I’ve met.
culebron21 3y ago
Many texts on such things dive deep into psychology and evolutionary biology, but ignore sociological and anthropological studies that draw a clear picture of how this system works. In this text there are just 2 references to them, and though Webber's works were foundational, there've been a lot of works in sociology in the past 100 years. The two most promiment names, that this text doesn't even mention, are Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu. Goffman systemized a lot of social interactions. Pierre Bourdieu focused on classes and their reproduction. Instead, a lot of authors and laymen theorize by building a bridge from, say, macroeconomics and geopolitics, directly into human psychology or bio-psychology, deriving big trends and state structures from simple knee-jerk-like psychological reflexes.
- philprx 3y ago
  I'm looking for the paper called something like "TLDR Bourdieu Goffman Webber: How Social system of fame, status, reputation work?" ;-) any reco? ;-)) btw, I found "The Prince" by Machiavelli very telling on social dynamics: basic you will say, but that kind of fits my TLDR needs ;-)
  - xoac 3y ago
    Usually the TLDR for any philo/sociology/theory text is it’s introduction as authors tend to expose their argument there so: try the introduction to Distinction for Bourdieu.
  - throwaway173738 3y ago
    The Prince was a satire of the political dynamics of the time.
    - bazoom42 3y ago
      What makes you think it is a satire?
      - rdevsrex 3y ago
        Exactly, it seems like a clear eyed instruction manual for the time.
FlyingSnake 3y ago
"Impro" by Keith Johnstone is one book that deals with the concept of status, even though it was written as a manual for improvisational theater.
- mettamage 3y ago
  Impro is awesome on it!
- MrPatan 3y ago
  Can't upvote more, so will repeat: read impro. It's short. I wonder if it's more useful to a certain kind of person for whom this stuff may be less readily legible, but I suspect there's a lot of that kind here. Read impro.
Razengan 3y ago
Prompt hacks.
akomtu 3y ago
To understand social status, look at these two piles of bones of ancient mesopotamian people. One pile belonged to a king, the other belonged to a peasant.
- bruce343434 3y ago
  Which of these two lived a more comfortable, longer and healthier life?
  - achenet 3y ago
    very good question to ask. I recall reading that higher status was associated with longer life in 19th/20th civil servants in the UK or the US, it's possible that this was true in mesopotamia as well. In theory, the trappings of what the article called "prestige" status should confer a happier life - if many people like you, you'll have easier access to resources, better social relationships, and perhaps even more meaning/sense of purpose in your life, all of which I believe are correlated with longevity and health.
  - akomtu 3y ago
    Does it matter who felt more comfortable for a short span of 60-80 years a few thousand years ago?
    - bruce343434 3y ago
      How I interpreted the grandparent comment is that status doesn't matter because we all die. My implied counterpoint is that it makes no sense to focus on what we will be after death (similar piles of bones). Rather, we should focus on having the nicest life now that we can still experience it. And I tried to imply the point that someone with high status probably enjoys a nicer life than someone of low status. Yes, we all die. No, nothing we do will matter a few thousand years later. Should we just immediately give up then to skip to the inevitable? If so, why haven't you killed yourself already?
Archelaos 3y ago
> The nineteenth-century sociologist Max Weber Most of his famous works date from the twentieth century.
- WJW 3y ago
  But he himself did not.
  - ztrww 3y ago
    Nobody would describe Woodrow Wilson for instance as a 19th century politician
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
reliablereason 3y ago
Social status is a measure of something like the average desirability of everyone else to be your friend. It does has causal power in the minds of people how actively think of it, as they actively relate to the concept. But for other people who don’t think of it, social status is a composite measure that correlates to things, but does not actually have any effect on anything.
- smabie 3y ago
  Pretty sure everyone thinks about social status
  - jychang 3y ago
    Not all humans even complete language acquisition, so that’s a bold statement you’re making.
dash2 3y ago
The prestige/dominance distinction is a naturally attractive idea because it lets us split status into "good" and "bad" kinds. I'm not sure, though, that there's much evidence that the two are truly separate. (To build intuition: in academia, or perhaps in the world of software engineering, it might be hard to distinguish between the two. Brilliant scientists often end up running a lab, and they may then have - and sometimes abuse! - a lot of raw power.) I think the first paper about this stuff was: Henrich J, Gil-White FJ: The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coevol_lab/files/henrich_gil-white_2001.pdf https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coev... There's a review here: http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf
- jychang 3y ago
  In real life, I’m sure prestige and dominance are mixed. Pure prestige and pure dominance would be hard to find. But I see it as a useful construct to delineate the differences regardless, because it maps pretty easily onto the traditional question of “is it better to be feared or loved”? Most people have been exposed to Machiavelli in one way or another, and understand the distinction between the carrot and stick.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Plenty of criminals, thugs and gang leaders are dominant but not prestigious. I'm not sure it's about fear vs love so much as fear vs aspiration and admiration. Prestigious people are widely admired - sometimes for reasonable reasons, sometimes for trivial ones, such as being funny, glib, and/or charismatic, and being a successful grifter and chancer. When you get individuals who combine perceived class and status with hardcore grift, either funny or passionately sincere/angry superficial glibness, perhaps some scapegoating, and some hints of dominance, you've built yourself a successful demagogue. The same applies to the more populist and opportunist religious leaders. And perhaps some startup founders and senior managers. It's hugely depressing to realise how inevitable this is. Most people assume they're making rational decisions about status interactions. They have no idea how their own software works - or even that they have software. The possibility that it might be flawed, biased, and easy to exploit is completely foreign to them.
js8 3y ago
Previous discussion from few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36185055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36185055
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago
  this text certainly isn't relevant enough to warrant a second discussion within 8 days. it's a good example for imprecise reasoning where you chain arguments/claims/citations to reach a conclusion but with a little bit of ambiguity or vagueness sneaked in so you can lead it in any desired direction.
seydor 3y ago
I believe americans are obsessed with status as some sort of social marketplace. But it seems that technological societies place less of importance on status. Apart from business CEOs, and academics (where status is mandatory for survival), most technologists don't appear to be obsessed with status. People go about with nicknames, you rarely see "credits" pages in applications, and most of the world's best engineers are not known outside their small circle. The most socialist societies seem to place a lot of emphasis on the process and less on status , making people interchangeable As for whether social status increases number of offspring in today's world, please show me the data to support this instead of making wild extrapolations from thousands of years ago.
- heresie-dabord 3y ago
  Status is a force-multiplier. It's a mix of credibility and financial resources. Warren Buffet has status. Bill Gates has status. Elon Musk has status and money but has been told to stop squandering his credibility on side-shows. Bernie Madoff had credibility and other people's money. Elizabeth Holmes worked the room to acquire credibility in the hope of gathering enough money to somehow make lies become legitimate. Donald Trump self-proclaims his status.
  - seydor 3y ago
    Most of those people got their status after winning in other ways, except Madoff and Holmes and we know how that ended. Interesting that you call it "self-proclaimed", when he s the only person in the list who relied on his status to climb to the top post of the world. Whether it's a force-multiplier depends a lot on the context. In an army, status determines the chain of command absolutely. In modern startups, their doors are revolving and Commanders don't have a lot of leverage except transactionally (i.e. by paying more)
    - heresie-dabord 3y ago
      I agree that he is an interesting case (to say the least). But much of his bravado is "self-proclaiming". As a politician, he tried a couple of times before he was able to parlay his claims into a large following. Then with this support, he parlayed himself into the top status position in US politics. His commitment to intellectual enlightenment and integrity being unmistakably dubious, what seems to bother him the most following the loss of the election in 2020 is the loss of status.
z3t4 3y ago
In every group setting there is an unspoken ranking. When everyone know their rank its stable, but if someone gain rank or fall in rank the rank has to be settled. Also the group work to maintain the rank. It can be cheated of course, like in the military you have artificial ranking, and also in corporate settings its artificial.
- achenet 3y ago
  I disagree - I believe many groups have a dynamic much more complicated than that, where the 'rank' question can basically remain in constant flux, forever.
belorn 3y ago
A fairly in depth article, through I do find a major issue that recurs is that they use the same definition of aggression and violence for both men and women, and then use that to eliminate or minimize the existence of female aggression. Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any male that violated this too much was subsequently the victim of a targeted killing." Women competing with with other women using dominance behavior like bullying is a very common behavior, and I doubt there is a parent with a teenage daughter or teacher who has not observed this. We can also see this in apes, with female to female dominance behavior being one if not the biggest causes of death for female baboons. To continue with animal observations, male baboons have a different form of dominance behavior, and their behavior also result in dead baboons. Female aggression is about depriving the lower ranked females of food, water, sleep and grooming (together with some amount of bites and scratches), while male aggression is primarily about major injuries sustained during fights. If we define the latter as the single definition of aggression and dominance then the other form becomes invisible to us. Going down further in the article, they define power as access to and control of resources. Not access to and control of people. This in order to say that women don’t have a strong craving for power because "obtaining power entails the risk of being disliked, and, unlike status, power has few social payoffs". It uses an exclusively male definition for power. Here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237101081_Female_Dominance_Hierarchies_Are_They_Any_Different_from_Males https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237101081_Female_Do...') is a study done on dominance behavior in female vs male hierarchies. It basically fully invalidates most of this article's claims on male vs female behavior in terms of dominance. It does not seem to use a male-centric definition of dominance. I am not all against this article. It is a fairly in-depth description of the topic and an interesting read. I would however advise to consider some of the terminology and definitions to be a bit limited, and occasionally leading the reader into misconceptions by trying to use a single definition for both men and women.
- vjk800 3y ago
  > Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any male that violated this too much was subsequently the victim of a targeted killing." This quote is horribly wrong anyway. Human history, even before agriculture and industrialization, is filled with tribal wars. Maybe it would be more right to say that the aggressive bullies have historically had an outlet for their aggression: killing the aggressive bullies of other tribes. If aggressiveness were absolutely useless personality trait in past societies, it would have been weeded out by the evolution a long time ago.
theelous3 3y ago
> Left to your own devices, with no task demanding your immediate concentration, you tend to spend a good deal of time thinking about other people—your judgments of them; their evaluations of you. This might be true for the author but is very presumptuous imo. I spend approximately no time per day judging others or interrogating my social status. I of course think about other people, but there are many ways to think about others. There are many ways to think about yourself. I guess it's not surprising the author of a piece on status has a highly status alined thought process, but it's not by a longshot the default mode for everyone. > But if you say you want to be promoted because you want respect, that’s often regarded as an appropriate desire. I would think the same in each case. If someone doesn't think they have respect because of their job title, or they think they have it for the inverse, I feel bad for them. If I meet you on a monday and you're an x, and tuesday you're an x+1, in my eyes you're the same person. Similarly if I meet people for the first time. I honestly don't think I'm being particularly contrarian on this. I know idiot ceos, intelligent homeless people, and some kind of everyone in between. This whole take strikes me as naive to the nature of people. Even the author of some other quoted book has weird priors I completely disagree with: > for many of us this price is simply too high; we’d rather be low on the totem pole than be perceived as arrogant and domineering If you're arrogant and domineering _you are low on the totem pole_. It's really interesting to see that this author is putting someone "high" on the totem pole because of some singular status markers like job title / situational power regardless of their behaviour. It says a lot. It's not that I don't think status is real. I just don't believe it can be gained by maxmimising any one or even some multiple of typical status markers. Idk. I just find this surreal.
- not_alexb 3y ago
  > I spend approximately no time per day judging others or interrogating my social status. I of course think about other people, but there are many ways to think about others. There are many ways to think about yourself. Agreed; I can't think of a more boring way to spend my time. However, their writing allowed me to finally model why overt racists might spend their time being racist: self-gratification. Either way, it honestly blows my mind to find out people spend their time thinking about social hierarchy this much; go use that time to create something instead ffs.
iamnotsure 3y ago
Are We There Yet?
jongjong 3y ago
It's about money. Everything is about money. We behave like pigeons following a trail of breadcrumbs. There's no truth; there are narratives and there are counter-narratives; it all comes down to one big pile of money pushing against another big pile of money. Without money, truth doesn't even get a seat at the table. Given enough money and time, you could make people do anything and believe anything. Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. That's why it's absolutely critical that we have a sound monetary system.
- parthianshotgun 3y ago
  Found the Ferengi!
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  >That's why it's absolutely critical that we have a sound monetary system. Meanwhile people in power maintain their inequality of power by manipulating the monetary system. Uh... Bitcoin pls? >Given enough money and time, you could make people do anything and believe anything. Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. I think this is a lot less human than you make it out to be. I looked up BP largest shareholder. Some conglomerate owned 0.6% of the company. So... its more like economics rather than different people with bags of money.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. Made irrelvant to who or what?
jsdeveloper 3y ago
Status equals to power, the more powerfull you are , say by your mind, or money or beauty or by simply usefulness, the more status you have in society.
charlieyu1 3y ago
I’d rather pursue money than social status. I don’t care about what other people think. A higher social status often creates unnecessary enemies and problems. And the best way to money is often unknown to most people. Loose lips sink ships.
- molly0 3y ago
  I think having a lot of money but being anonymous and not caring about what people think of you - would actually give you “high status” in a lot of groups. :p
- cubefox 3y ago
  Wealth confers social status to men. Similar to how being young and slender confers social status to women.
  - throw4847285 3y ago
    Being young and slender confers social status to men, they just don't like to admit it. Look at how much money and effort wealthy men put into keeping up appearances (plastic surgery, hair transplants, exercise regimens, etc). Women face a lot more pressure, and the standards are far more absurd, but please look at a current picture of Elon Musk and tell me he isn't just as preening as some boogeywoman you could come up with. If wealth was enough he of all people wouldn't bother. But it isn't. It's just another trait men project onto women while denying when they have it themselves: vanity.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      There is a big difference in degree here.
      - throw4847285 3y ago
        Oh for sure. But I wanted to challenge your binary analogy that Wealth is to Men as Physical Beauty is to Women. We live in an across the board vain society, and women bear the brunt of that, but not all of it.
throw4847285 3y ago
This piece smelled fishy, but then I noticed the footnote that states this is adapted from a Peterson Academy course. That explains the cherry picked citations from impressive sounding social scientists which leads to "evo psych says" as if evo psych is (a) a consensus and (b) something anybody should take seriously. Plus, citing The Great Gatsby makes me think you haven't read a novel since high school. It's just pseudoscience and faux intellectualism all the way down.
motohagiography 3y ago
Nice to see Henderson on here, I've been a subscriber. I've often thought that status is a function of what's yours to share. It's distinct from positional power that was conferred, because the necessary condition for organic status is to be the object of the desire of others. It's also separate from having shiny stuff, because if it's stolen or unstable, it's not yours to share. Famous musicians and actors have the highest status in the world becuse they can share their fame, but relatively very little direct power - and the most powerful people in the world do not represent what others want, but rather just have control of some diminishing resources. The psychological definition he uses where power is "control of access to resources" is an ok model. Separating it from status and prestige is key, where he gives the example of olympic athletes vs. nightclub bouncers, where each have high or low status and high or low power respectively. Conferring power on low status people is a recipe for disaster, where those people will find ways to apply the power to an infinite need for status - without regard for the human desire that confers its legitimacy. It's what makes a lot of the current crop of establishment aspirants so uncanny, they have seized the reins of institutions, but are themselves personally undesirable because they have nothing of their own to share - it's all over leveraged and competing to supplicate themselves. Arguably, the tension in the culture is that there are no good men or good women in institutional power today, and so much so that people in power are trying to erase what "good" even means because it is a source of humiliation for them. They will try arbitrarily to destroy people who have the organic status that their own power does not give them. Never underestimate the capacity of undesirable people for cruelty, it's what the cold war was fought over, imo. Becoming higher status is a straightforward process of self improvement, where through exercise, education, practice and competence, you become more desirable to others, and the resources you have are ones that are yours to share. There is no mystery there. The interesting question to me is, given power is rarely ever converted into desirable status, how is status converted into power? We used to call it "convening power," where royalty and celebrities could get people in a room together. If an invitation came from them, it would be accepted, and brokering that meeting (and taking some equity) was how to convert status into power. But if there were a way to convert it directly, I think there is a recipe for peace, where it would mean both a way to respect and participate in civilization instead of trying to rule over its ashes.
HPsquared 3y ago
In the brain, serotonin seems to be deeply related to social status. This is Jordan Peterson's bit about lobsters - it's so ubiquitous that even lobsters share the same mechanism. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939
- amelius 3y ago
  How do you explain that some people are not sensitive to social status?
  - stbede 3y ago
    Can you elaborate?
  - graeme 3y ago
    That it's a false belief. One of two things happens in those cases: 1. That person is in some way sad regardless of what they profess, or 2. They have their own subgroup where they rate status according to the status rankings of the subgroup. This can include rejecting the status hierarchy of the mainstream, but this itself is a status play With the internet this sub group can now be entirely online. But there does not exist such a thing as someone entirely insensitive to social status. If you posit there is, can you name an example of such a person?
    - another_story 3y ago
      Not OP, but I've known/taught autistic kids who would seem to fall under that umbrella.
    - blueflow 3y ago
      Yes, i could. Several coworkers. But due to their nature, they are largely invisible (they do not care about being seen, validated or represented) if you aren't seeing them in person. And i, myself, would probably also qualify.
nyolfen 3y ago
the best essay i've read on the topic, much better than the op: https://meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-hole/ https://meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-hol... the author went on to cowrite a well-received pop-sci book about social signaling theory that i highly recommend as well, the elephant in the brain
MichaelMoser123 3y ago
I have the impression that social status is a factor thing when dealing with doctors. I asked ChatGTP about that: User: Two individuals with the the same insurance policy but of different social standing go to hospital, who will get more medical attention? ChatGTP: Ideally, in a fair and equitable healthcare system, the allocation of medical attention should not be influenced by an individual's social standing. The principle of medical ethics dictates that healthcare professionals should provide medical attention based on medical need rather than personal characteristics such as social standing. In many countries, including those with universal healthcare systems, medical attention is typically allocated based on the severity and urgency of the medical condition. In such systems, patients are generally triaged and treated according to the severity of their condition, regardless of their social standing. However, it's important to acknowledge that systemic biases and disparities can exist in healthcare systems, and these can impact the allocation of medical attention. Factors such as unconscious bias, unequal access to healthcare facilities, and differences in socioeconomic resources can influence the healthcare experience of individuals from different social standings. Efforts are made in many healthcare systems to address these disparities and promote equal access to medical attention. Policies and guidelines are implemented to ensure fair treatment and to mitigate the influence of personal characteristics on healthcare delivery. Additionally, healthcare providers are expected to adhere to professional standards and ethical principles that prioritize patient well-being and equitable care. It is crucial to continue advocating for equitable healthcare systems and addressing any existing biases or disparities to ensure that everyone, regardless of their social standing, receives the medical attention they need and deserve. User: Can you site studies that confirm the existence of systemic bias in healthcare systems? ChatGTP: Certainly! There have been numerous studies conducted that highlight the existence of systemic bias in healthcare systems. Here are a few examples: "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare" - This landmark report by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) in 2002 extensively examined racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare in the United States. The report concluded that racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower-quality healthcare even when controlling for factors such as insurance, income, and education. "The Anatomy of Health Care in the United States" - Published in 2013 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), this study analyzed healthcare disparities by socioeconomic status. It found that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have worse access to care, higher rates of preventable hospitalizations, and lower utilization of preventive services. "Patient Characteristics Associated with Differences in Mortality Rates Among Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries in the Top Decile of Risk" - This study, published in JAMA in 2016, examined the impact of socioeconomic factors on mortality rates among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. It found that patients with higher incomes and more education had lower mortality rates compared to those with lower socioeconomic status. "Hidden Disparities: How Discrimination and Racism Affect Health and Health Care" - This report by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies highlights the impact of racism and discrimination on health outcomes. It discusses how biases in healthcare systems can result in unequal treatment and contribute to health disparities among marginalized populations. These are just a few examples of studies that have explored systemic bias and healthcare disparities. It's important to note that research in this area is ongoing, and numerous studies continue to provide evidence of disparities based on factors such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other social determinants of health.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
When it comes to human status, and group status dynamics. Surprised there isn't more references to Robert Sapolsky and baboons. If you are going to make an evolutionary argument around humans and status, think his work would be at least referenced.
hellyer 3y ago
Being a person of low social status and with no resources, suicide is a constant temptation. The article reads like a horror story on human nature and is a reminder for why I wish to be dead.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vonnik 3y ago
Rob's anecdote about the precarious Yale lecturer who won't take a lower-status job at a Midwestern University is surprisingly widespread but rarely shared publicly, because if the people working high-prestige low-pay jobs revealed their wages or lack of, they would lose in prestige. Indeed, entire industries that are high-visibility can get away with paying in prestige rather than money at the entry level. Think low- to no-pay internships. In addition to academia, this includes the top journalism outlets (well-known websites, magazines, etc); fashion houses; and political campaigns. The second order effect of these industries and organizations paying in prestige is to limit the pool of people in such entry level jobs to those who can afford it. Yes, you see some working-class people there, but you see many children of the elite. And that is how a certain class reproduces its dominance across highly visible cultural and political industries. At the extreme, there is an element of potlatch in accepting no-pay jobs. Sam Altman's amazing interaction with Senator Kennedy during the AI hearings is a good example of that. Sam can afford to take no pay, and that makes him immune to a certain kind of criticism, augmenting his prestige and influence.

168 points by jseliger 3y ago

I think the author tried to pack a little too much into this article, but it's an interesting topic and his observations ring true. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who successfully climbed the social hierarchy from dysfunctional foster childhood to Ivy league deserves every ounce prestige he earned.

Animats 3y ago
> I think the author tried to pack a little too much into this article... That's a problem with blog posts. A dated, but amusing book length expansion on this topic is "Class", by Paul Fussell.

madaxe_again 3y ago

“ Humans don’t like bullies. ” Uh. All recorded history would suggest otherwise. Humans love bullies, strongmen, charlatans who promise panaceas at the wave of a stick. What humans actually don’t like are bullies outside of the current established and expected hierarchy - bullies that threaten their bully. Prestige and dominance are an utter time-sink, and the reward curve is hideously steep - unless you are at the very pinnacle of the hierarchy, you grind to stay afloat - whereas at the top, prestige and dominance magnetically attract to you. I think a lot of what we take as being the default condition isn’t - we see all these behaviours and we assume it’s something innate to us and other primates - but I think it’s cultural and Malthusian, rather than a hard-baked desire for primacy. The hard-baked desire is for survival - and prestige play is a minmax route to this for most people living in a society - it’s easier than setting up your own society. With blackjack. And… Anyway. Ramblings. My perspective emerges from stepping sideways off the highway of life: I once strove for status, and garnered no small amount. Didn’t do a damned thing for me - the hierarchy may as well be infinite. I have found that I enjoy having less than zero status, as there’s nothing to lose, no plays to make, no maintenance payments to be made - here, everyone thinks I am a pauper, possibly mentally defective, definitely helplessly living in squalor off the land like our ancestors. The reality is somewhat different, but I’m content for others to think otherwise. I spent far too much of my life being dogged by high expectations. I’m a sample of one, but I can’t help but try to examine why I feel as I do - and I think the answer is that I derive my security entirely outside of interpersonal relationships - I don’t owe anyone anything, nor they me, and I need nothing from them. So… is status “real”? I doubt it. I think it’s just a manifestation of fear and insecurity, and a primal need for a parent figure who can protect and guide. Perhaps the latter - parents - are also an important part of the need for social hierarchy, as they’re also an element I lacked, being largely raised by impersonal, militarised institutions.

jychang 3y ago
Strong agree. Like you said, the parenting aspect is crucial- that’s been well established in mainstream psychology for a long time now. The opposite of insecurity is trust (either in oneself or others), and this is difficult to develop later in life. There is research into this nowadays, anywhere from cognitive science psychology to MDMA assisted PTSD treatments to develop self-trust, but conclusive understanding still evades humanity at this point in time. I do think most people who are very intelligent in terms of IQ, but have other issues… end up in a similar situation as you. Smart enough to overthink and realize where they exist in society, not smart enough to solve the problem when the solution is supposed to be handed to them from their ancestors. That’s not an insult by the way- Einstein was smart enough to create relativity, but he had algebra and calculus etc handed to him from his ancestors. I doubt Einstein would have invented relativity from scratch. I wonder if it’s possible to capture the key essence of parenting and re-teach people critical information that’s supposed to be taught in childhood. We all know about language acquisition and the critical period, after which if a child is not taught, they end up like Genie (the feral child, born 1957). But I suspect there are other social skills that are supposed to be taught, but commonly are not taught by parents, or simply unable to be taught if the parents do not exist.
- achenet 3y ago
  the book The Artist's Way by Julia Cameron kinda does this for some things. It did help me a lot, I guess you could say it taught me the art of "self parenting".
zmgsabst 3y ago
I think it creates social instability when power becomes too decoupled from hierarchy: That’s the whole point of a hierarchy, to mediate disputes other than the raw exercise of power — and conflicts become sudden and unexpected if insufficient status is granted to those able to wield power. This is a corollary to your point about outsider bullies; if someone strong isn’t integrated into the hierarchy, violence isn’t predictable and hence survival less assured. Outside of that, I can’t say that “The Game” has held any particular appeal to me — and I dislike many of the status seekers I’ve met.

culebron21 3y ago

Many texts on such things dive deep into psychology and evolutionary biology, but ignore sociological and anthropological studies that draw a clear picture of how this system works. In this text there are just 2 references to them, and though Webber's works were foundational, there've been a lot of works in sociology in the past 100 years. The two most promiment names, that this text doesn't even mention, are Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu. Goffman systemized a lot of social interactions. Pierre Bourdieu focused on classes and their reproduction. Instead, a lot of authors and laymen theorize by building a bridge from, say, macroeconomics and geopolitics, directly into human psychology or bio-psychology, deriving big trends and state structures from simple knee-jerk-like psychological reflexes.

philprx 3y ago
I'm looking for the paper called something like "TLDR Bourdieu Goffman Webber: How Social system of fame, status, reputation work?" ;-) any reco? ;-)) btw, I found "The Prince" by Machiavelli very telling on social dynamics: basic you will say, but that kind of fits my TLDR needs ;-)
- xoac 3y ago
  Usually the TLDR for any philo/sociology/theory text is it’s introduction as authors tend to expose their argument there so: try the introduction to Distinction for Bourdieu.
- throwaway173738 3y ago
  The Prince was a satire of the political dynamics of the time.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    What makes you think it is a satire?
    - rdevsrex 3y ago
      Exactly, it seems like a clear eyed instruction manual for the time.

FlyingSnake 3y ago

"Impro" by Keith Johnstone is one book that deals with the concept of status, even though it was written as a manual for improvisational theater.

mettamage 3y ago
Impro is awesome on it!
MrPatan 3y ago
Can't upvote more, so will repeat: read impro. It's short. I wonder if it's more useful to a certain kind of person for whom this stuff may be less readily legible, but I suspect there's a lot of that kind here. Read impro.

Razengan 3y ago

Prompt hacks.

akomtu 3y ago

To understand social status, look at these two piles of bones of ancient mesopotamian people. One pile belonged to a king, the other belonged to a peasant.

bruce343434 3y ago
Which of these two lived a more comfortable, longer and healthier life?
- achenet 3y ago
  very good question to ask. I recall reading that higher status was associated with longer life in 19th/20th civil servants in the UK or the US, it's possible that this was true in mesopotamia as well. In theory, the trappings of what the article called "prestige" status should confer a happier life - if many people like you, you'll have easier access to resources, better social relationships, and perhaps even more meaning/sense of purpose in your life, all of which I believe are correlated with longevity and health.
- akomtu 3y ago
  Does it matter who felt more comfortable for a short span of 60-80 years a few thousand years ago?
  - bruce343434 3y ago
    How I interpreted the grandparent comment is that status doesn't matter because we all die. My implied counterpoint is that it makes no sense to focus on what we will be after death (similar piles of bones). Rather, we should focus on having the nicest life now that we can still experience it. And I tried to imply the point that someone with high status probably enjoys a nicer life than someone of low status. Yes, we all die. No, nothing we do will matter a few thousand years later. Should we just immediately give up then to skip to the inevitable? If so, why haven't you killed yourself already?

Archelaos 3y ago

> The nineteenth-century sociologist Max Weber Most of his famous works date from the twentieth century.

WJW 3y ago
But he himself did not.
- ztrww 3y ago
  Nobody would describe Woodrow Wilson for instance as a 19th century politician

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

reliablereason 3y ago

Social status is a measure of something like the average desirability of everyone else to be your friend. It does has causal power in the minds of people how actively think of it, as they actively relate to the concept. But for other people who don’t think of it, social status is a composite measure that correlates to things, but does not actually have any effect on anything.

smabie 3y ago
Pretty sure everyone thinks about social status
- jychang 3y ago
  Not all humans even complete language acquisition, so that’s a bold statement you’re making.

dash2 3y ago

The prestige/dominance distinction is a naturally attractive idea because it lets us split status into "good" and "bad" kinds. I'm not sure, though, that there's much evidence that the two are truly separate. (To build intuition: in academia, or perhaps in the world of software engineering, it might be hard to distinguish between the two. Brilliant scientists often end up running a lab, and they may then have - and sometimes abuse! - a lot of raw power.) I think the first paper about this stuff was: Henrich J, Gil-White FJ: The evolution of prestige: freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coevol_lab/files/henrich_gil-white_2001.pdf https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/culture_cognition_coev... There's a review here: http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf http://joeytcheng.com/s/dominance-prestige-leveling.pdf

jychang 3y ago
In real life, I’m sure prestige and dominance are mixed. Pure prestige and pure dominance would be hard to find. But I see it as a useful construct to delineate the differences regardless, because it maps pretty easily onto the traditional question of “is it better to be feared or loved”? Most people have been exposed to Machiavelli in one way or another, and understand the distinction between the carrot and stick.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Plenty of criminals, thugs and gang leaders are dominant but not prestigious. I'm not sure it's about fear vs love so much as fear vs aspiration and admiration. Prestigious people are widely admired - sometimes for reasonable reasons, sometimes for trivial ones, such as being funny, glib, and/or charismatic, and being a successful grifter and chancer. When you get individuals who combine perceived class and status with hardcore grift, either funny or passionately sincere/angry superficial glibness, perhaps some scapegoating, and some hints of dominance, you've built yourself a successful demagogue. The same applies to the more populist and opportunist religious leaders. And perhaps some startup founders and senior managers. It's hugely depressing to realise how inevitable this is. Most people assume they're making rational decisions about status interactions. They have no idea how their own software works - or even that they have software. The possibility that it might be flawed, biased, and easy to exploit is completely foreign to them.

js8 3y ago

Previous discussion from few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36185055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36185055

2-718-281-828 3y ago
this text certainly isn't relevant enough to warrant a second discussion within 8 days. it's a good example for imprecise reasoning where you chain arguments/claims/citations to reach a conclusion but with a little bit of ambiguity or vagueness sneaked in so you can lead it in any desired direction.

seydor 3y ago

I believe americans are obsessed with status as some sort of social marketplace. But it seems that technological societies place less of importance on status. Apart from business CEOs, and academics (where status is mandatory for survival), most technologists don't appear to be obsessed with status. People go about with nicknames, you rarely see "credits" pages in applications, and most of the world's best engineers are not known outside their small circle. The most socialist societies seem to place a lot of emphasis on the process and less on status , making people interchangeable As for whether social status increases number of offspring in today's world, please show me the data to support this instead of making wild extrapolations from thousands of years ago.

heresie-dabord 3y ago
Status is a force-multiplier. It's a mix of credibility and financial resources. Warren Buffet has status. Bill Gates has status. Elon Musk has status and money but has been told to stop squandering his credibility on side-shows. Bernie Madoff had credibility and other people's money. Elizabeth Holmes worked the room to acquire credibility in the hope of gathering enough money to somehow make lies become legitimate. Donald Trump self-proclaims his status.
- seydor 3y ago
  Most of those people got their status after winning in other ways, except Madoff and Holmes and we know how that ended. Interesting that you call it "self-proclaimed", when he s the only person in the list who relied on his status to climb to the top post of the world. Whether it's a force-multiplier depends a lot on the context. In an army, status determines the chain of command absolutely. In modern startups, their doors are revolving and Commanders don't have a lot of leverage except transactionally (i.e. by paying more)
  - heresie-dabord 3y ago
    I agree that he is an interesting case (to say the least). But much of his bravado is "self-proclaiming". As a politician, he tried a couple of times before he was able to parlay his claims into a large following. Then with this support, he parlayed himself into the top status position in US politics. His commitment to intellectual enlightenment and integrity being unmistakably dubious, what seems to bother him the most following the loss of the election in 2020 is the loss of status.

z3t4 3y ago

In every group setting there is an unspoken ranking. When everyone know their rank its stable, but if someone gain rank or fall in rank the rank has to be settled. Also the group work to maintain the rank. It can be cheated of course, like in the military you have artificial ranking, and also in corporate settings its artificial.

achenet 3y ago
I disagree - I believe many groups have a dynamic much more complicated than that, where the 'rank' question can basically remain in constant flux, forever.

belorn 3y ago

A fairly in depth article, through I do find a major issue that recurs is that they use the same definition of aggression and violence for both men and women, and then use that to eliminate or minimize the existence of female aggression. Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any male that violated this too much was subsequently the victim of a targeted killing." Women competing with with other women using dominance behavior like bullying is a very common behavior, and I doubt there is a parent with a teenage daughter or teacher who has not observed this. We can also see this in apes, with female to female dominance behavior being one if not the biggest causes of death for female baboons. To continue with animal observations, male baboons have a different form of dominance behavior, and their behavior also result in dead baboons. Female aggression is about depriving the lower ranked females of food, water, sleep and grooming (together with some amount of bites and scratches), while male aggression is primarily about major injuries sustained during fights. If we define the latter as the single definition of aggression and dominance then the other form becomes invisible to us. Going down further in the article, they define power as access to and control of resources. Not access to and control of people. This in order to say that women don’t have a strong craving for power because "obtaining power entails the risk of being disliked, and, unlike status, power has few social payoffs". It uses an exclusively male definition for power. Here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237101081_Female_Dominance_Hierarchies_Are_They_Any_Different_from_Males https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237101081_Female_Do...') is a study done on dominance behavior in female vs male hierarchies. It basically fully invalidates most of this article's claims on male vs female behavior in terms of dominance. It does not seem to use a male-centric definition of dominance. I am not all against this article. It is a fairly in-depth description of the topic and an interesting read. I would however advise to consider some of the terminology and definitions to be a bit limited, and occasionally leading the reader into misconceptions by trying to use a single definition for both men and women.

vjk800 3y ago
> Like: "We tamed ourselves by weeding out bullies and domineering males throughout our evolutionary history. Humans organized egalitarian societies, and any male that violated this too much was subsequently the victim of a targeted killing." This quote is horribly wrong anyway. Human history, even before agriculture and industrialization, is filled with tribal wars. Maybe it would be more right to say that the aggressive bullies have historically had an outlet for their aggression: killing the aggressive bullies of other tribes. If aggressiveness were absolutely useless personality trait in past societies, it would have been weeded out by the evolution a long time ago.

theelous3 3y ago

> Left to your own devices, with no task demanding your immediate concentration, you tend to spend a good deal of time thinking about other people—your judgments of them; their evaluations of you. This might be true for the author but is very presumptuous imo. I spend approximately no time per day judging others or interrogating my social status. I of course think about other people, but there are many ways to think about others. There are many ways to think about yourself. I guess it's not surprising the author of a piece on status has a highly status alined thought process, but it's not by a longshot the default mode for everyone. > But if you say you want to be promoted because you want respect, that’s often regarded as an appropriate desire. I would think the same in each case. If someone doesn't think they have respect because of their job title, or they think they have it for the inverse, I feel bad for them. If I meet you on a monday and you're an x, and tuesday you're an x+1, in my eyes you're the same person. Similarly if I meet people for the first time. I honestly don't think I'm being particularly contrarian on this. I know idiot ceos, intelligent homeless people, and some kind of everyone in between. This whole take strikes me as naive to the nature of people. Even the author of some other quoted book has weird priors I completely disagree with: > for many of us this price is simply too high; we’d rather be low on the totem pole than be perceived as arrogant and domineering If you're arrogant and domineering _you are low on the totem pole_. It's really interesting to see that this author is putting someone "high" on the totem pole because of some singular status markers like job title / situational power regardless of their behaviour. It says a lot. It's not that I don't think status is real. I just don't believe it can be gained by maxmimising any one or even some multiple of typical status markers. Idk. I just find this surreal.

not_alexb 3y ago
> I spend approximately no time per day judging others or interrogating my social status. I of course think about other people, but there are many ways to think about others. There are many ways to think about yourself. Agreed; I can't think of a more boring way to spend my time. However, their writing allowed me to finally model why overt racists might spend their time being racist: self-gratification. Either way, it honestly blows my mind to find out people spend their time thinking about social hierarchy this much; go use that time to create something instead ffs.

iamnotsure 3y ago

Are We There Yet?

jongjong 3y ago

It's about money. Everything is about money. We behave like pigeons following a trail of breadcrumbs. There's no truth; there are narratives and there are counter-narratives; it all comes down to one big pile of money pushing against another big pile of money. Without money, truth doesn't even get a seat at the table. Given enough money and time, you could make people do anything and believe anything. Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. That's why it's absolutely critical that we have a sound monetary system.

parthianshotgun 3y ago
Found the Ferengi!
hospitalJail 3y ago
>That's why it's absolutely critical that we have a sound monetary system. Meanwhile people in power maintain their inequality of power by manipulating the monetary system. Uh... Bitcoin pls? >Given enough money and time, you could make people do anything and believe anything. Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. I think this is a lot less human than you make it out to be. I looked up BP largest shareholder. Some conglomerate owned 0.6% of the company. So... its more like economics rather than different people with bags of money.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>Anyone who doesn't bend to the will of big capital will be made irrelevant. Made irrelvant to who or what?

jsdeveloper 3y ago

Status equals to power, the more powerfull you are , say by your mind, or money or beauty or by simply usefulness, the more status you have in society.

charlieyu1 3y ago

I’d rather pursue money than social status. I don’t care about what other people think. A higher social status often creates unnecessary enemies and problems. And the best way to money is often unknown to most people. Loose lips sink ships.

molly0 3y ago
I think having a lot of money but being anonymous and not caring about what people think of you - would actually give you “high status” in a lot of groups. :p
cubefox 3y ago
Wealth confers social status to men. Similar to how being young and slender confers social status to women.
- throw4847285 3y ago
  Being young and slender confers social status to men, they just don't like to admit it. Look at how much money and effort wealthy men put into keeping up appearances (plastic surgery, hair transplants, exercise regimens, etc). Women face a lot more pressure, and the standards are far more absurd, but please look at a current picture of Elon Musk and tell me he isn't just as preening as some boogeywoman you could come up with. If wealth was enough he of all people wouldn't bother. But it isn't. It's just another trait men project onto women while denying when they have it themselves: vanity.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    There is a big difference in degree here.
    - throw4847285 3y ago
      Oh for sure. But I wanted to challenge your binary analogy that Wealth is to Men as Physical Beauty is to Women. We live in an across the board vain society, and women bear the brunt of that, but not all of it.

throw4847285 3y ago

This piece smelled fishy, but then I noticed the footnote that states this is adapted from a Peterson Academy course. That explains the cherry picked citations from impressive sounding social scientists which leads to "evo psych says" as if evo psych is (a) a consensus and (b) something anybody should take seriously. Plus, citing The Great Gatsby makes me think you haven't read a novel since high school. It's just pseudoscience and faux intellectualism all the way down.

motohagiography 3y ago

Nice to see Henderson on here, I've been a subscriber. I've often thought that status is a function of what's yours to share. It's distinct from positional power that was conferred, because the necessary condition for organic status is to be the object of the desire of others. It's also separate from having shiny stuff, because if it's stolen or unstable, it's not yours to share. Famous musicians and actors have the highest status in the world becuse they can share their fame, but relatively very little direct power - and the most powerful people in the world do not represent what others want, but rather just have control of some diminishing resources. The psychological definition he uses where power is "control of access to resources" is an ok model. Separating it from status and prestige is key, where he gives the example of olympic athletes vs. nightclub bouncers, where each have high or low status and high or low power respectively. Conferring power on low status people is a recipe for disaster, where those people will find ways to apply the power to an infinite need for status - without regard for the human desire that confers its legitimacy. It's what makes a lot of the current crop of establishment aspirants so uncanny, they have seized the reins of institutions, but are themselves personally undesirable because they have nothing of their own to share - it's all over leveraged and competing to supplicate themselves. Arguably, the tension in the culture is that there are no good men or good women in institutional power today, and so much so that people in power are trying to erase what "good" even means because it is a source of humiliation for them. They will try arbitrarily to destroy people who have the organic status that their own power does not give them. Never underestimate the capacity of undesirable people for cruelty, it's what the cold war was fought over, imo. Becoming higher status is a straightforward process of self improvement, where through exercise, education, practice and competence, you become more desirable to others, and the resources you have are ones that are yours to share. There is no mystery there. The interesting question to me is, given power is rarely ever converted into desirable status, how is status converted into power? We used to call it "convening power," where royalty and celebrities could get people in a room together. If an invitation came from them, it would be accepted, and brokering that meeting (and taking some equity) was how to convert status into power. But if there were a way to convert it directly, I think there is a recipe for peace, where it would mean both a way to respect and participate in civilization instead of trying to rule over its ashes.

HPsquared 3y ago

In the brain, serotonin seems to be deeply related to social status. This is Jordan Peterson's bit about lobsters - it's so ubiquitous that even lobsters share the same mechanism. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01378-2 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.11.5939

amelius 3y ago
How do you explain that some people are not sensitive to social status?
- stbede 3y ago
  Can you elaborate?
- graeme 3y ago
  That it's a false belief. One of two things happens in those cases: 1. That person is in some way sad regardless of what they profess, or 2. They have their own subgroup where they rate status according to the status rankings of the subgroup. This can include rejecting the status hierarchy of the mainstream, but this itself is a status play With the internet this sub group can now be entirely online. But there does not exist such a thing as someone entirely insensitive to social status. If you posit there is, can you name an example of such a person?
  - another_story 3y ago
    Not OP, but I've known/taught autistic kids who would seem to fall under that umbrella.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    Yes, i could. Several coworkers. But due to their nature, they are largely invisible (they do not care about being seen, validated or represented) if you aren't seeing them in person. And i, myself, would probably also qualify.

nyolfen 3y ago

the best essay i've read on the topic, much better than the op: https://meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-hole/ https://meltingasphalt.com/social-status-down-the-rabbit-hol... the author went on to cowrite a well-received pop-sci book about social signaling theory that i highly recommend as well, the elephant in the brain

MichaelMoser123 3y ago

I have the impression that social status is a factor thing when dealing with doctors. I asked ChatGTP about that: User: Two individuals with the the same insurance policy but of different social standing go to hospital, who will get more medical attention? ChatGTP: Ideally, in a fair and equitable healthcare system, the allocation of medical attention should not be influenced by an individual's social standing. The principle of medical ethics dictates that healthcare professionals should provide medical attention based on medical need rather than personal characteristics such as social standing. In many countries, including those with universal healthcare systems, medical attention is typically allocated based on the severity and urgency of the medical condition. In such systems, patients are generally triaged and treated according to the severity of their condition, regardless of their social standing. However, it's important to acknowledge that systemic biases and disparities can exist in healthcare systems, and these can impact the allocation of medical attention. Factors such as unconscious bias, unequal access to healthcare facilities, and differences in socioeconomic resources can influence the healthcare experience of individuals from different social standings. Efforts are made in many healthcare systems to address these disparities and promote equal access to medical attention. Policies and guidelines are implemented to ensure fair treatment and to mitigate the influence of personal characteristics on healthcare delivery. Additionally, healthcare providers are expected to adhere to professional standards and ethical principles that prioritize patient well-being and equitable care. It is crucial to continue advocating for equitable healthcare systems and addressing any existing biases or disparities to ensure that everyone, regardless of their social standing, receives the medical attention they need and deserve. User: Can you site studies that confirm the existence of systemic bias in healthcare systems? ChatGTP: Certainly! There have been numerous studies conducted that highlight the existence of systemic bias in healthcare systems. Here are a few examples: "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare" - This landmark report by the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) in 2002 extensively examined racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare in the United States. The report concluded that racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower-quality healthcare even when controlling for factors such as insurance, income, and education. "The Anatomy of Health Care in the United States" - Published in 2013 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), this study analyzed healthcare disparities by socioeconomic status. It found that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have worse access to care, higher rates of preventable hospitalizations, and lower utilization of preventive services. "Patient Characteristics Associated with Differences in Mortality Rates Among Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries in the Top Decile of Risk" - This study, published in JAMA in 2016, examined the impact of socioeconomic factors on mortality rates among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. It found that patients with higher incomes and more education had lower mortality rates compared to those with lower socioeconomic status. "Hidden Disparities: How Discrimination and Racism Affect Health and Health Care" - This report by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies highlights the impact of racism and discrimination on health outcomes. It discusses how biases in healthcare systems can result in unequal treatment and contribute to health disparities among marginalized populations. These are just a few examples of studies that have explored systemic bias and healthcare disparities. It's important to note that research in this area is ongoing, and numerous studies continue to provide evidence of disparities based on factors such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other social determinants of health.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

When it comes to human status, and group status dynamics. Surprised there isn't more references to Robert Sapolsky and baboons. If you are going to make an evolutionary argument around humans and status, think his work would be at least referenced.

hellyer 3y ago

Being a person of low social status and with no resources, suicide is a constant temptation. The article reads like a horror story on human nature and is a reminder for why I wish to be dead.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vonnik 3y ago

Rob's anecdote about the precarious Yale lecturer who won't take a lower-status job at a Midwestern University is surprisingly widespread but rarely shared publicly, because if the people working high-prestige low-pay jobs revealed their wages or lack of, they would lose in prestige. Indeed, entire industries that are high-visibility can get away with paying in prestige rather than money at the entry level. Think low- to no-pay internships. In addition to academia, this includes the top journalism outlets (well-known websites, magazines, etc); fashion houses; and political campaigns. The second order effect of these industries and organizations paying in prestige is to limit the pool of people in such entry level jobs to those who can afford it. Yes, you see some working-class people there, but you see many children of the elite. And that is how a certain class reproduces its dominance across highly visible cultural and political industries. At the extreme, there is an element of potlatch in accepting no-pay jobs. Sam Altman's amazing interaction with Senator Kennedy during the AI hearings is a good example of that. Sam can afford to take no pay, and that makes him immune to a certain kind of criticism, augmenting his prestige and influence.