This article appears to be setting up debate over the meaning of a word without defining the word or outlining tests to tell what the word means to the author.

This article appears to be setting up debate over the meaning of a word without defining the word or outlining tests to tell what the word means to the author. The points being made are meaningless without more foundational definitions. Knowing whether status is a zero-sum or positive sum game requires knowing what the rules are. Unfortunately the word is so fuzzy that I don't think a HN comment can usefully outline what it means. And in some sense, useful discussions of status mechanics are taboo, people get uncomfortable and high-status people tend to dissemble on the topic because nothing good can come to them from more people understanding the game. Friedman explicitly acknowledges the lack of definition with: "One conclusion is that the last thing we want is a system for objectively ranking people, for defining status in a way that everyone agrees on". That is the sort of thing I mean about dissembling. Society is actually quite cruel to delusional people who misjudge their own status or don't bend to the commonly accepted status tells. Status is communally held and not just in one person's head; individuals will be given hard feedback until they conform to the externally developed status hierarchies. Their beliefs do not overrule the collective belief of their status. Evolution has also made humans remarkably sensitive to status signals and hints from the people around them to try and stop misalignments.