What you call status, in my framework, is called position. Position is a source of resources for survival, and also a node through which resources flow. Under the pressure of the Four Pressures, life must first occupy a position to secure the acquisition and production of resources needed to maintain itself. Second, as resources begin to flow through positions, some positions can control their entry, outflow, and distribution. Other structures that need to pass through such a position to obtain resources become dependent on it. The more important the resources it controls, the fewer alternative paths there are, and the stronger the dependence, the greater the power held by that position.
Position is not just social ranking. It determines what a living system can obtain, and then what it can control. Wealth, office, prestige, and organizational identity can be converted into power not because these symbols have power in themselves, but because behind them are different quantities and different kinds of important resources and the pathways through which those resources flow.
This is why life is so sensitive to competing for position, maintaining position, and declines in position. In an environment where the Four Pressures continue to operate, losing position may mean losing resources; occupying a key position means not only gaining resources, but also being able to influence who those resources flow to. Position thus changes from a condition of survival into a structure of power within relationships.
Finally getting the chance to sit down and go through this piece since you last updated it, it's incredibly ambitious and will keep me busy for a while... I know you said the purpose won't be clear til the end, but I'm gonna be impatient and ask what's in my head now: Are you primarily interested in producing a general theory of social relations in this paper, or in describing the reality of everyday social interactions? I'm asking that as a binary because I think they really are two different things, and that the level of detail that you go into and the glossary framing of the hermeneutics sometimes fights with the outline of the general theory that's presented here, despite standing well on their own. I wonder if this is multiple essays in a trenchcoat. I'm going through module by module and it's not always easy to keep in my mind where this particular item lives in the hierarchy of the framework... Do you think the theory could be distilled any further if we ignore some of the detailed descriptions of how it manifests?
Would you describe the explanatory power of this model as being truly general, in the sense that you could apply the more abstract principles and predictions to human social organization at large, or primarily focused on late modern Western conditions? In other words, what is the domain of societies over which you’d accept predictive failure or local counterexamples as at least a partial falsification?
Another thing that I’m noticing from your sexed epistemics section, as well as your earlier gender wars general theory, is that a lot of the sexed differences in cognition map uncannily well onto the documented cognitive differences between WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations, (with WEIRD being masculine and non-WEIRD feminine). Examples include:
-Analytic vs holistic thinking and categorization
-The stability of personality traits such as generosity, honor, trustworthiness, etc across temporal, relational, and contextual lines
-Whether the self is defined primarily through personal characteristics (occupation, interests, etc) or relational ones (Son of James, husband of Mary, etc)
-Propositional as opposed to contextual decision making
still havent finished listening but DAMN
What you call status, in my framework, is called position. Position is a source of resources for survival, and also a node through which resources flow. Under the pressure of the Four Pressures, life must first occupy a position to secure the acquisition and production of resources needed to maintain itself. Second, as resources begin to flow through positions, some positions can control their entry, outflow, and distribution. Other structures that need to pass through such a position to obtain resources become dependent on it. The more important the resources it controls, the fewer alternative paths there are, and the stronger the dependence, the greater the power held by that position.
Position is not just social ranking. It determines what a living system can obtain, and then what it can control. Wealth, office, prestige, and organizational identity can be converted into power not because these symbols have power in themselves, but because behind them are different quantities and different kinds of important resources and the pathways through which those resources flow.
This is why life is so sensitive to competing for position, maintaining position, and declines in position. In an environment where the Four Pressures continue to operate, losing position may mean losing resources; occupying a key position means not only gaining resources, but also being able to influence who those resources flow to. Position thus changes from a condition of survival into a structure of power within relationships.
Hey Walt,
This Lindsay Clancy thing seems like it would be right your alley for an article.
Would love to hear your take.
It reminds me exactly of the “it’s not about the nail” meme.
Cheers!
Finally getting the chance to sit down and go through this piece since you last updated it, it's incredibly ambitious and will keep me busy for a while... I know you said the purpose won't be clear til the end, but I'm gonna be impatient and ask what's in my head now: Are you primarily interested in producing a general theory of social relations in this paper, or in describing the reality of everyday social interactions? I'm asking that as a binary because I think they really are two different things, and that the level of detail that you go into and the glossary framing of the hermeneutics sometimes fights with the outline of the general theory that's presented here, despite standing well on their own. I wonder if this is multiple essays in a trenchcoat. I'm going through module by module and it's not always easy to keep in my mind where this particular item lives in the hierarchy of the framework... Do you think the theory could be distilled any further if we ignore some of the detailed descriptions of how it manifests?
Would you describe the explanatory power of this model as being truly general, in the sense that you could apply the more abstract principles and predictions to human social organization at large, or primarily focused on late modern Western conditions? In other words, what is the domain of societies over which you’d accept predictive failure or local counterexamples as at least a partial falsification?
Another thing that I’m noticing from your sexed epistemics section, as well as your earlier gender wars general theory, is that a lot of the sexed differences in cognition map uncannily well onto the documented cognitive differences between WEIRD and non-WEIRD populations, (with WEIRD being masculine and non-WEIRD feminine). Examples include:
-Analytic vs holistic thinking and categorization
-The stability of personality traits such as generosity, honor, trustworthiness, etc across temporal, relational, and contextual lines
-Whether the self is defined primarily through personal characteristics (occupation, interests, etc) or relational ones (Son of James, husband of Mary, etc)
-Propositional as opposed to contextual decision making