The problem with that argument is that status isn't determined by the person seeking it, it's determined by those deciding whether to mate with the status seeker. That's where our hardwired impulses toward status seeking derive from...our need to perpetuate the species.
That doesn't mean that it's necessarily zero sum, but it means we're not completely in control of framing it the way that you and the article are suggesting. But you are right that there are different dimensions of status because different people value different characteristics. Some people are attracted to strong men that can lift 300 pounds and others prefer the refinement of a knowledge of classical music. But if you choose to define your status to far from the societal norms, you won't find others that agree with that framing and you'll be isolated out of the gene pool.
This is somewhat of an oversimplification and we use status for more than just mate selection, but our dimensions for status seeking are still based on how we want to attract sexual partners.
You haven't actually outlined any problems with that argument, you've simply stated that status in the eye of the beholder isn't perfectly aligned with that of the status holder.
> Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the things they're good at.
I'm arguing that you don't get to define status for yourself, so there are limits to how you can distinguish yourself and still claim status. You have to be graded on a recognized dimension of status. That makes it virtually impossible for everyone to be high status.
Also, certain dimensions of status are far more universal than others. I don't care how much you can bench press, you're going to be almost universally seen as lower status than a handsome, movie-star actor. Those dimensions of status are so widespread that you really can't define your way past them.
And it works in reverse too...certain dimensions are almost universally unrecognized. For example, I can hold my breath for just over 8 minutes. That puts me in elite company and people are almost always impressed by it. A couple of decades ago, going that long without breathing would have met the medical definition of death despite my never having lost consciousness. But I can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how much I'd like it to.
> But I can assure you that it confers basically zero status, no matter how much I'd like it to.
You could learn to free dive in a couple of weeks and use your capacity for breath holding to get yourself on most countries' national team (doubt that would cut it for the US team, but you could win some regional meets). Being a national athlete confers decent status, more so if you pick up a medal.
From a quick Google for an example, the current NZ and 4th global women's record for women is 7 minutes 45 in static apnea [1], and she easily beat the men's champion, so 8 minutes would presumably be very good. I'm basing the mapping from "apnea capability" to "free diving capability" off what a free diving friend told me.
Heh...freediving is the context in which one learns to hold his breath for that long :) Unfortunately, my static times don't translate as well into dynamic times. I'm basically limited to 2-3 minutes underwater when I'm moving. My PB for depth is around 50m, which is nowhere near elite.
I basically came to freediving too late in life to ever be world class in any of the disciplines. The funny thing is that, when it comes to status, what little my freediving training has gained me has come from the associated weight loss.
The argument is weak. Basically : just choose the status you're happy with and you'll be king. Except that you don't choose your status, you earn it. Except that society won't reward your own personal little status. Etc.
I didn't miss that argument. I just believe it is irrelevant. Status is still zero sum. Creating arbitrary criteria for status does not mean said criteria are not zero sum.
As for the hypothetical situation you mentioned -- no, everyone would not be high status. Say you had three people who liked running, football and computer science respectively. It may be true that they do not "compete" with each other for status, but assuming they're in a system in which there is at least one other player in their respective fields: running, football and computer science, status would still be zero sum.
In the situation in which they are the only player, that would mean the status that they are deriving is not coming solely from what they are doing, because if it was, there simply would be no status to begin with.
---
Of course this premise that you can get your status solely from a single thing with no residual effects from the "greater life" or context itself is pretty ridiculous. So in the case with the running and football, they're both athletes, so even though they're different sports, they still share the status pool. Similarly, computer science and athletics are both school extracurriculars. Expand out until you get to humanity. Zero sum persists.
No, I think you're missing the beauty of the system, which is that although there might be a global average status that is truly zero-sum (you can't increase your global rank without pushing someone else down a position), if status is indeed multidimensional, then every person can search for some community or group that will give them status within that community.
In in practice that is the case. Most people in the world won't care to have this particular discussion with me, but here in HN I can find like-minded people and hopefully get sweet posting karma.
That allows people to focus less on the global zero-sum status game, and more on finding a community or group that they can usefully contribute to.
What use is a high status in a (hypothetical) group with effectively zero influence? One's status is only as useful/important as the people who ascribe it to them.
People care about status in groups that they either care about or benefit them, and that is sometimes independent of that group's 'global' influence.
The most simple hypothetical example:
There are only two people in the world, Adam and Jane, and they form two 'groups', A and B, with 2 members each.
If Adam values group A more than group B, and Jane conversely, then we can see that the most efficient 'status allocation' is for each to work for higher status in their respective groups.
This avoids the zero sum situation where both Adam and Jane care equally about their status in the same group.
You can see this in practice playing out -- every person is nominally a member of many different groups (their PTA, their HOA, country, city, family, company, work team, etc.), but they're ok with being low or average status in most of them and put their energy in status in groups that really benefit them in some direct way.
If groups A and B have 2 members each, but one of the members cares about the group status, while the other one doesn't, don't they effectively have only 1 member?
I.e. group of "me and someone who doesn't care" would just be a group of "me". Then that group isn't useful to be high status in, since it doesn't offer any extra benefits (a group of "me" can't do more than just me).
If the weights weren't 1 and 0 for A and B respectively, but something like 1 and 0.5, then the group's value would just be (status within the group) * sum(participants sans self * their weight * their influence). (assuming influence can be quantified somehow)
Then if I gain status in a group, and other members of the group lose a bit of their status, I can evaluate the gains and losses and the sum will be 0.
To get the global status I just sum the results for all the groups I'm part of, and compare to other people.
So a person A can be highly regarded in a paper airplane folding club, but unless there's a surprising number of top politicians/lobbyists/whatever who care about the club a lot, person B who plays golf with Donald Trump will probably have higher global status.
-----
Looking at it now, I guess you could say that the global status is technically non-zero sum, since it will inflate with creation of new groups.
Maybe the weights representing how much people care should need to sum to 1 for every person, that would solve the inflation? Then it only inflates when new people appear.
Anyway, the global status is just a ranking showing who can "move the most pieces", as it were.
I think you're low status because you can't crush 300kg deadlifts like me, you think I'm low status because I don't appreciate classic music like you.
Everybody can be high status if they care to define status in terms of the things they're good at.