I think you guys have put together an interesting and potentially very useful redefinition of status.
Take this for example:
Johnstone describes this as lowering your own status in order to defend yourself, which would make no sense if we had a theory where status was simply the ability to influence someone. You can’t influence someone by reducing your ability to influence them
Yes, the letter-snooper IS lowering his status, even though he is gaining a temporary advantage of not being berated by triggering guilt of this one person. An observer looking at this would have a low opinion of the snooper loosing his dignity, and he would have less status-induced influence thereafter.
I think status is much closer to dominance in common usage.
I would suggest using another word(combination) for what you’re describing.
Yes, the letter-snooper IS lowering his status, even though he is gaining a temporary advantage of not being berated by triggering guild of this one person. An observer looking at this would have a low opinion of the snooper loosing his dignity, and he would have less status-induced influence thereafter.
Yes, but he’s lowering his status (general-purpose influence) for the particular purpose of achieving a specific outcome. The point is that he’s trading it for something else. What you say is in agreement with this article.
In brief: status is a measure of general purpose optimization power in complex social domains
the authors would claim that the person “increased” or “used” their status in this transaction, but I would say they lowered it in common usage of the term, including yours
Yes, but he’s lowering his status
hence I would claim this is a redefinition of the term.
I am only semantics here, but I feel it’s important because using the term in an uncommon manner will lead to confusion.
I think you guys have put together an interesting and potentially very useful redefinition of status.
Take this for example:
Yes, the letter-snooper IS lowering his status, even though he is gaining a temporary advantage of not being berated by triggering guilt of this one person. An observer looking at this would have a low opinion of the snooper loosing his dignity, and he would have less status-induced influence thereafter.
I think status is much closer to dominance in common usage.
I would suggest using another word(combination) for what you’re describing.
Yes, but he’s lowering his status (general-purpose influence) for the particular purpose of achieving a specific outcome. The point is that he’s trading it for something else. What you say is in agreement with this article.
I think based on the
the authors would claim that the person “increased” or “used” their status in this transaction, but I would say they lowered it in common usage of the term, including yours
hence I would claim this is a redefinition of the term.
I am only semantics here, but I feel it’s important because using the term in an uncommon manner will lead to confusion.