you can download it here:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmi/0501001.html

I think there is a problem with your idea, namely: not all status games are the same. Don’t you think there is a kind of meta-ranking of status games? If that’s true, you can’t just simple choose a status-game, and the zero-sum problem will be back.

Geert Holterman

you can download it here:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmi/0501001.html

I think there is a problem with your idea, namely: not all status games are the same. Don’t you think there is a kind of meta-ranking of status games? If that’s true, you can’t just simple choose a status-game, and the zero-sum problem will be back.

Geert Holterman

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/status-competition.html

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/status-competition.html

If people only care about specific dimensions of status, zero-sumness (positionality) is preserved. You might as well just claim that, in the absence of these TOTALLY INNOVATIVE MARKETS, DUDE, a society with only one status dimension is “non-zero sum”, because hey, you don’t have to care about that dimension, now, do you!

Try again.

If people only care about specific dimensions of status, zero-sumness (positionality) is preserved. You might as well just claim that, in the absence of these TOTALLY INNOVATIVE MARKETS, DUDE, a society with only one status dimension is “non-zero sum”, because hey, you don’t have to care about that dimension, now, do you!

Try again.

Familys can judge on all sorts of matters, not just money earned. Eg, you’re a bad person because you married a soccer player/didn’t get your PhD/didn’t nurse cousin Emily through her illness/voted Green/converted to being a Jehovah Witness/etc.

People who might loan you money for a house or school do so presumably either because they love you (eg your parents) or because they think they will gain from the interest on the loan. Either possibility doesn’t have much to do with status in itself.

All things being equal, I would have thought a person in the street would be more likely to attack a person who looks rich/high status than the opposite. I have a friend who has had three leather coats stolen from him so far, no one has ever tried to take my old wool one. Indeed, complete strangers have chased me down the street to give it back when I have left it accidently in bars or restaurants.

Familys can judge on all sorts of matters, not just money earned. Eg, you’re a bad person because you married a soccer player/didn’t get your PhD/didn’t nurse cousin Emily through her illness/voted Green/converted to being a Jehovah Witness/etc.

People who might loan you money for a house or school do so presumably either because they love you (eg your parents) or because they think they will gain from the interest on the loan. Either possibility doesn’t have much to do with status in itself.

All things being equal, I would have thought a person in the street would be more likely to attack a person who looks rich/high status than the opposite. I have a friend who has had three leather coats stolen from him so far, no one has ever tried to take my old wool one. Indeed, complete strangers have chased me down the street to give it back when I have left it accidently in bars or restaurants.

The hand waving assertions (such as the dismissal of vervet monkey dominance compared to academic dominance) are rife and silly on their face. “Struggling artists do not doubt their superiority in the face of successful accountants.” Bullshit: of course they do. Which is why so very many avoid or depart the arts.

And of course, the problem of status is not solved by being excellent at something irrelevant because status is what other people think of you. Including people you can’t leave behind, that will judge you, such as your family. Including people you HAVE to do business with, such as the people who might loan you money for college or a house. Including people you merely pass on the street, who might choose to attack you or rob you because of your status. None of them might think better of you because you are the high lord elf Bigglesnort in your D&D cell: they will think you have low status because you don’t earn a good living.

Maybe Will Wilkinson and his circle of friends don’t worry about their status. They probably don’t worry much about their access to health care or where their next meal is coming from either. But those latter two can be really important to the well-being of the poor, and status might be too. We can’t tell from Will’s anecdotes of his personal feelings.

The hand waving assertions (such as the dismissal of vervet monkey dominance compared to academic dominance) are rife and silly on their face. “Struggling artists do not doubt their superiority in the face of successful accountants.” Bullshit: of course they do. Which is why so very many avoid or depart the arts.

And of course, the problem of status is not solved by being excellent at something irrelevant because status is what other people think of you. Including people you can’t leave behind, that will judge you, such as your family. Including people you HAVE to do business with, such as the people who might loan you money for college or a house. Including people you merely pass on the street, who might choose to attack you or rob you because of your status. None of them might think better of you because you are the high lord elf Bigglesnort in your D&D cell: they will think you have low status because you don’t earn a good living.

Maybe Will Wilkinson and his circle of friends don’t worry about their status. They probably don’t worry much about their access to health care or where their next meal is coming from either. But those latter two can be really important to the well-being of the poor, and status might be too. We can’t tell from Will’s anecdotes of his personal feelings.