3 ms·
Some of these points are perceived situations in which social status affects its outcomes without proof but here they are. The main point is that if you have lo
by laeri 3y ago
Some of these points are perceived situations in which social status affects its outcomes without proof but here they are.
The main point is that if you have low status you will be treated differently which greatly changes your interactions with others.
1. You won't get treated fairly, someone with perceived high social status will get fairer treatment. This I personally witnessed in a hospital setting where the sole presence of someone "important" was notified in advance and they got more attention which means probably better attention to detail and therefore outcome in treatment. You might also receive worse service, such as in restaurants, flights, hotels. As people want to court and leave a better impression with someone in a social status
2. People will not respect you. As the article said status comes with respect. You might not judge others by their status but others will for sure judge you. They will talk behind their back about you and this will negatively affect any encounters with other people. Even if you don't judge others low social status will negatively discolor your interactions with others.
3. Also cause and effect might be inverted here. Low skill and ability in a specific domain usually leads to low status. Therefore other's treat you worse as your skills are of relative little importance in the domain. If someone in a tech setting can't solve trivial problems they will aquire low status and suffer in a multitude of ways. In the best case you will be ignored and assigned to tasks with relative little value. In the worst case you can't continue to work there. Just the fact that you have low social status should get you to worry. If you had better skill your social status would actually improve, at least to people that are in the same domain and value the particular skills needed there.
Either you suffer repercussions due to your low social status or you suffer repercussions due to the factors that lead to your status.
- theelous3 3y agoI don't think you're really addressing the question with the hospital example nor the others. I could be the senior engineer of Amazing Inc., as well as a jacked high level MMA fighter and gracious altruist - beloved by all known to me - but if someone who knows the hospital admins walks in they are of course going to get some preferential treatment. This sort of "I know a guy" status that gives you a leg up on other people _regardless_ of their status doesn't really capture the essence here, I think. I had an absolutely massive post written but I think it might be easier to ask, what do you think a low status person is?
- laeri 3y agoEDIT: I meant someone with 'vip' status, not someone just known to the admin stuff. That still does not invalidate my point. I think my examples address the questions or what do you think they miss? You suffer either because of low status or you have low status because you suffer of some deficiencies that other people think you have. For sure low status can also be arbitrary in many cases but it still has consequences.
- theelous3 3y agoWhat is someone with vip status? I could be an anti-social weak willed loser respected by nobody, but if I have good health insurance in the US I'm going to get preferential treatment over someone with worse health insurance regardless of whatever other social status goings on there are. Is having good health insurance social status? Or is it just having good health insurance? I'm not from the US so the hospital example doesn't really apply to me, it's far more egalitarian here, but even in the US I think the above counterexample shows some cracks in the notion. Furthermore, I don't think a lack of advantages are the same as repercussions. Repercussions are active negatives, where lack of advantages are inactive positives. This is specifically what I was asking about, and why I don't feel like these examples are getting at "repercussions".
- laeri 3y agoI don't see the connection with health insurance itself. I agree that this has nothing to do with status. My comparison does not include domeone with healthcare and someone without. Being treated worse is a repercussion. Being actively denied them is a repercussion and also an active negative in your definition. If you are keen on this distinction you can ignore the health care example. But the social consequences fall definetely in this category.