My preferred definition for status is “the ability to control (or influence) the group”, which as a special case includes the ability to control yourself. Children are in general far more protected than adults, but a lot of that protection comes at the cost of having harsh restrictions on your freedom, so under this definition children would be considered to be low-status. (You could also word this as “status is the amount of optimization power you are allowed to exert”. Hmm. I wonder this would be worth a top-level post.)
Women have historically had a number of restrictions on their ability to control themselves and the broader group. They didn’t always have the right to vote or to spend money without their husband’s permission, and to some degree they persist in having less sexual freedom, a smaller pay than males, be less likely to be found in positions of authority or to be taken seriously when in authoritative positions, be less likely to be found in prestigious occupations, and so on.
My preferred definition for status is “the ability to control (or influence) the group”
Rather, it’s godshatter counterpart of that. You can have status without ability to influence the group, or ability to influence the group without status. The pattern is explanatory, but doesn’t quite work as definition.
Ah, I think you’ve stated what I was trying to more clearly than I did. Its godshatteriness/proxiness is why we need a characterization rather than a definition.
My preferred definition for status is “the ability to control (or influence) the group”,
That is a great measure of status but at as a definition it is just wrong. While strongly correlated these two concepts are not the same. I can think of ways to influence a group while still having low status. And I can think of situations in which it is better to stay low status even though group influence is still desirable.
Examples that are not necessarily practical but which unambiguously demonstrate that the two concepts are different:
Sabotage media sources (which can be either in group or out of group) that do not support whatever policy you prefer.
Poison people.
Plant bombs.
Essentially anything that can kill or influence the behavior of other people without being traceable to you.
Advanced techniques of influence that maximise the desirable alteration of the brain state of others without raising your state. (Optimal use of priming and suggestion, etc.)
Be the example. If five people are littering that encourages other people to do it. If one person is littering and getting visibly punished socially for it that is an extremely strong way to discourage other people from littering. (Has been studied. Reference probably in Cialdini.)
Pay prostitutes. (In general, pay people to do stuff when to do so lowers status.)
Make (apparent) attempts to influence the group. If you do so when you have low status then other people (typically those from the middle of the pack) will take the excuse to crush you and in so doing demonstrate their dominance. This can be used to exploit the influence of others but actually lowers your status.
There are examples that are much less extreme than the above (which means less useful as definitive demonstration). I will say that I routinely sacrifice dominance in order to win. Most people focus more on dominance than winning. This can be exploited. This winning is obviously integrally tied up with influence.
Conclusion: Make a post on the ability to influence the group and perhaps show how it relates (both ways) to status. But definitely do not waste the insights you would be expressing in the post by premising them on a false definition.
It’s also common, if low status people attempt to influence a group, for their ideas to not be heard until the idea is picked up by a higher status person. The low status person never gets credit, but has influenced the group.
I was in a pagan group for a while which met at somewhat irregular times and places. A high status person in the group would call people to tell them about when and where.
I later found out that one of the reasons the group eventually dissolved was that the low status person who’d been reminding the high status person to do the phone calls had moved out of the area.
I don’t know how common that sort of thing is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s an important but almost invisible feature of how things work.
I don’t know how common that sort of thing is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s an important but almost invisible feature of how things work.
I suspect extremely high. Social dominance independent of domain knowledge and competence is common and in a subset of such cases the group still functions.
On reflection, I think your original insight is basically correct, but acquires explanatory capacity only when supplemented with what I’m going to call a theory of conversions.
I’ve actually been aware of “power conversions” for several years (the topic is discussed in Jerry Weinberg’s Becoming a Technical Leader), but I only thought to apply that to that frustratingly elusive “status” notion tonight as I was turning in. (And had to get up to take some notes; so much for a good night’s sleep.) Something went click; the two seem to be a very nice fit, and to make sense of a whole bunch of things that were previously perplexing to me. It has interesting implications, for instance it suggests that “raising your status” is meaningless. It neatly incorporates Vladimir’s observations of “godshatteriness”. I could go on.
Would you be interested in collaborating on a top-level post on this idea? My plan would be to send you a draft of the core ideas and some implications, have you turn a critical eye on it, and if it still stands after that, incorporate your own take on it.
It’s also common, if low status people attempt to influence a group, for their ideas to not be heard until the idea is picked up by a higher status person. The low status person never gets credit, but has influenced the group.
I was in a pagan group for a while which met at somewhat irregular times and places. A high status person in the group would call people to tell them about when and where.
I later found out that one of the reasons the group eventually dissolved was that the low status person who’d been reminding the high status person to do the phone calls had moved out of the area.
I don’t know how common that sort of thing is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s an important but almost invisible feature of how things work.
Is a definition really the appropriate way to handle the concept? I was under the impression that the word “status” refers to some collection of internal variables in the human brain, where by “internal” I mean intermediate, not necessarily corresponding to individual features of the outside world; what might be a called a hanging node if not for the fact our actions depend on it and other people care about it. In such a case, attempting to define it makes no sense, only to describe how it interacts with the rest of the system, as it’s not even meaningful on its own.
A definition for “status” is simply an answer to the question “what do you mean by status”. If we frequently use the word, then we should have some relatively agreed-upon definition for it, or at least give our own definition whenever someone asks. If we everyone means something else when they say “status”, then we’ll never succeed in communicating to others the things we want to communicate to them.
If you say the term “status” refers to some collection of internal variables in the human brain, and then describe how those variables interact with other things, then that’s a definition of status as well.
I would also like to see the top-level post, but there are a couple problems with this definition. First of all, if we’re talking about how much influence people have, it would be clearer to use a word like, say, “influence”. Second, status usually suggests some element of what people think of you, which is related to though not the same as influence. One can be highly influential but poorly-regarded, and vice versa. Note that in this sense status can be multi-dimensional: for instance, people can regard you as a good person to spend time with, but think poorly of your intelligence.
This is a good point, thank you. I have an intuition that while status is the ability to control the group, you can have influence without having status, although you cannot have status without having influence. That points to an flaw in my definition, one which I should resolve somehow before making that post.
I should probably note that I think that there are actually two different terms to which we refer when we say “status”. Status1 (or “influence”) is the ability to control the group, so it’s the one I was talking about above. Status2 is stuff like official titles or other considerations that cause a situation where it’s expected that people grant you Status1. I believe that people liking you would fall under Status2.
Is that true? A few counterexamples come to mind, such as figurehead monarchs and Paris Hilton. Or is the assumption that their status is such that they could ‘control the group’ to some degree if they so chose, even without any formally recognized authority?
My preferred definition for status is “the ability to control (or influence) the group”, which as a special case includes the ability to control yourself. Children are in general far more protected than adults, but a lot of that protection comes at the cost of having harsh restrictions on your freedom, so under this definition children would be considered to be low-status. (You could also word this as “status is the amount of optimization power you are allowed to exert”. Hmm. I wonder this would be worth a top-level post.)
Women have historically had a number of restrictions on their ability to control themselves and the broader group. They didn’t always have the right to vote or to spend money without their husband’s permission, and to some degree they persist in having less sexual freedom, a smaller pay than males, be less likely to be found in positions of authority or to be taken seriously when in authoritative positions, be less likely to be found in prestigious occupations, and so on.
Rather, it’s godshatter counterpart of that. You can have status without ability to influence the group, or ability to influence the group without status. The pattern is explanatory, but doesn’t quite work as definition.
Ah, I think you’ve stated what I was trying to more clearly than I did. Its godshatteriness/proxiness is why we need a characterization rather than a definition.
Edit: Made less ambiguous.
That is a great measure of status but at as a definition it is just wrong. While strongly correlated these two concepts are not the same. I can think of ways to influence a group while still having low status. And I can think of situations in which it is better to stay low status even though group influence is still desirable.
Examples that are not necessarily practical but which unambiguously demonstrate that the two concepts are different:
Sabotage media sources (which can be either in group or out of group) that do not support whatever policy you prefer.
Poison people.
Plant bombs.
Essentially anything that can kill or influence the behavior of other people without being traceable to you.
Advanced techniques of influence that maximise the desirable alteration of the brain state of others without raising your state. (Optimal use of priming and suggestion, etc.)
Be the example. If five people are littering that encourages other people to do it. If one person is littering and getting visibly punished socially for it that is an extremely strong way to discourage other people from littering. (Has been studied. Reference probably in Cialdini.)
Pay prostitutes. (In general, pay people to do stuff when to do so lowers status.)
Make (apparent) attempts to influence the group. If you do so when you have low status then other people (typically those from the middle of the pack) will take the excuse to crush you and in so doing demonstrate their dominance. This can be used to exploit the influence of others but actually lowers your status.
There are examples that are much less extreme than the above (which means less useful as definitive demonstration). I will say that I routinely sacrifice dominance in order to win. Most people focus more on dominance than winning. This can be exploited. This winning is obviously integrally tied up with influence.
Conclusion: Make a post on the ability to influence the group and perhaps show how it relates (both ways) to status. But definitely do not waste the insights you would be expressing in the post by premising them on a false definition.
It’s also common, if low status people attempt to influence a group, for their ideas to not be heard until the idea is picked up by a higher status person. The low status person never gets credit, but has influenced the group.
I was in a pagan group for a while which met at somewhat irregular times and places. A high status person in the group would call people to tell them about when and where.
I later found out that one of the reasons the group eventually dissolved was that the low status person who’d been reminding the high status person to do the phone calls had moved out of the area.
I don’t know how common that sort of thing is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s an important but almost invisible feature of how things work.
I suspect extremely high. Social dominance independent of domain knowledge and competence is common and in a subset of such cases the group still functions.
Thank you; these are good examples. You and the other commenters are right, my definition was inadequate. I need to think about it some more.
On reflection, I think your original insight is basically correct, but acquires explanatory capacity only when supplemented with what I’m going to call a theory of conversions.
I’ve actually been aware of “power conversions” for several years (the topic is discussed in Jerry Weinberg’s Becoming a Technical Leader), but I only thought to apply that to that frustratingly elusive “status” notion tonight as I was turning in. (And had to get up to take some notes; so much for a good night’s sleep.) Something went click; the two seem to be a very nice fit, and to make sense of a whole bunch of things that were previously perplexing to me. It has interesting implications, for instance it suggests that “raising your status” is meaningless. It neatly incorporates Vladimir’s observations of “godshatteriness”. I could go on.
Would you be interested in collaborating on a top-level post on this idea? My plan would be to send you a draft of the core ideas and some implications, have you turn a critical eye on it, and if it still stands after that, incorporate your own take on it.
I’d love to. :)
It’s also common, if low status people attempt to influence a group, for their ideas to not be heard until the idea is picked up by a higher status person. The low status person never gets credit, but has influenced the group.
I was in a pagan group for a while which met at somewhat irregular times and places. A high status person in the group would call people to tell them about when and where.
I later found out that one of the reasons the group eventually dissolved was that the low status person who’d been reminding the high status person to do the phone calls had moved out of the area.
I don’t know how common that sort of thing is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s an important but almost invisible feature of how things work.
Did Hitler have high status in the concentration camps?
Warmer
Are you serious? So Robinson Crusoe can actually be high or low status, even without Friday?
I think you’re defining something like “power”, not status.
I’d like to see that top-level post. Your definition of status is the only one I’ve seen on LW that is clear and testable.
Is a definition really the appropriate way to handle the concept? I was under the impression that the word “status” refers to some collection of internal variables in the human brain, where by “internal” I mean intermediate, not necessarily corresponding to individual features of the outside world; what might be a called a hanging node if not for the fact our actions depend on it and other people care about it. In such a case, attempting to define it makes no sense, only to describe how it interacts with the rest of the system, as it’s not even meaningful on its own.
I’m not sure if I understand what you mean.
A definition for “status” is simply an answer to the question “what do you mean by status”. If we frequently use the word, then we should have some relatively agreed-upon definition for it, or at least give our own definition whenever someone asks. If we everyone means something else when they say “status”, then we’ll never succeed in communicating to others the things we want to communicate to them.
If you say the term “status” refers to some collection of internal variables in the human brain, and then describe how those variables interact with other things, then that’s a definition of status as well.
Ah, you are using the word “definition” in a more inclusive way than I am. I would call that a characterization, not a definition.
I would also like to see the top-level post, but there are a couple problems with this definition. First of all, if we’re talking about how much influence people have, it would be clearer to use a word like, say, “influence”. Second, status usually suggests some element of what people think of you, which is related to though not the same as influence. One can be highly influential but poorly-regarded, and vice versa. Note that in this sense status can be multi-dimensional: for instance, people can regard you as a good person to spend time with, but think poorly of your intelligence.
This is a good point, thank you. I have an intuition that while status is the ability to control the group, you can have influence without having status, although you cannot have status without having influence. That points to an flaw in my definition, one which I should resolve somehow before making that post.
I should probably note that I think that there are actually two different terms to which we refer when we say “status”. Status1 (or “influence”) is the ability to control the group, so it’s the one I was talking about above. Status2 is stuff like official titles or other considerations that cause a situation where it’s expected that people grant you Status1. I believe that people liking you would fall under Status2.
See here for a recent mention of an example.
That’s a good example, especially since it’s different from the one I was thinking about. Thanks.
Is that true? A few counterexamples come to mind, such as figurehead monarchs and Paris Hilton. Or is the assumption that their status is such that they could ‘control the group’ to some degree if they so chose, even without any formally recognized authority?
Good point, let me reword: you cannot have status1 without having influence.
(I need to find better names for these. Status1 could be I-Status, for “Influence”. Status2… P-Status for “Position”, maybe.)