Grant, it find it unlikely that people really only dislike hearing about their low status, rather than being low status, but I’m open to data on the subject. And why can’t we say for any preference people have that they really only want to believe that their preference has been satisfied? That is, how does this argument apply with any extra force to status?

I think it applies with extra force to status because there is no objective measure of status. That is, there is no scoreboard of status ranking everyone can see. Unless there are actual status competitions, people’s internal ordinal status rankings (if they even have any; I’m not sure I do for a lot of people) can be totally mis-matched from reality (‘reality’ being whatever results would come of status competitions).

Status competitions seem to be considered especially rude or childish when they are among friends or peers. People who think they will loose status competitions obviously don’t want to, and may leave their social group if they feel their status has been lowered. People who think they may win status competitions may not be so adverse to them, but they may not want to loose friends or colleagues who may stop associating with them if they are humiliated.

Coupled with status competitions being negative-sum for other reasons, I think status prudishness is very rational. In a more tribal environment where people couldn’t simply go somewhere else and associate with another group of people, they may have made more since. If that environment a humiliated opponent had no choice but to remain in the tribe.

I don’t have any empirical data, only the anecdotes I’ve observed.

Are you sure there are female societies which don’t revolve around rumor-mongering? Even the male ones I know of seem to.

Are you arguing that the relative status of people who are close in status are determined by elites more than elsewhere, or that this detail of status competition has disappeared somewhat, leaving differences between larger groups (that elites might bother to differentiate between) to make up more of a person’s status (without this kind of activity increasing)?

When you say ‘delegate’, do you mean in any conscious way or just by default?

Frelkins, if elites control the status of whole groups by any means that seems irrelevant to the issue of who determines status between closer people who share the same groups and would in other societies be participating in ranking one another, which is what I thought we were talking about – I may have misunderstood. Accidental status determiners also seem irrelevant here, as they would apply in all societies.

By default, perhaps? Elites know elites. If they don’t know you, you’re not elite.

Here’s a concrete example that doesn’t seem to fit what either of you is saying: in the US college admission, especially to elite colleges is not transparent. It has to do with some simple numbers, but it also has to do with essays and interviews. The children of alumni are admitted to elite schools (“legacy admissions”), producing identical high status through a different channel.

This is compatible with KG’s “elites don’t know you.” On the other hand, the importance of interviews means that skills for interviews and knowing what elites want to hear is more important than skills for gossip and knowing what your circle wants to hear.

“Most elites don’t know you – how do they decide who to give status to? Probably the signals they see, which you do control”

This seems obtuse to me. Elites easily work through groups. Outgroups are quickly regulated and controlled through democracy. An individual can control only a few important status indicators. Others are your lucky or unlucky accident of birth, sadly. And the accidental ones tragically are often the most dominant in status issues.

1) Consider: why are people status prudish? Non-prudishness seems more common in low status groups, so perhaps being prudish about status demonstrates that you are high status. This makes sense because it shows you are powerful and knowledgeable about the required things enough to manipulate your position subtly. Then we aren’t delegating, but making the costs of status (in effort to know the right info and behavior) higher, as we seem to continually do with the costs for status.

2) In all societies elites appear to have as much say as they want in status; part of having high status is the demonstration that you have power over other people’s. If someone elite can be bothered intervening in your status it would probably override what your friends thought anyway, so any delegating we did to elites shouldn’t make a difference. Elite influence just looks more proportionally if you aren’t keeping up with subtly influencing your own status in the harsher competition.

3) Most elites don’t know you – how do they decide who to give status to? Probably the signals they see, which you do control. Am I missing who you mean by elites here? I’d like more examples – in Australia you get into college purely based on a number derived academically – having gone to a good college offers status still, but it looks like people have a lot more say in their own if this matters proportionally more than in status non-prudish groups – if there any reason it is less likely to go this way?