Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeHow to raise your status in a soc …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How to raise your status in a social group

#1 · July 18, 2022, 9:16 pm

Quote from John Freeman on July 18, 2022, 9:16 pm
Hello everyone,
Here are simple truths that I would like to share with you. Status in your social group is determined by many factors:
Your connection to each member: if you have a close relation to all the members
Your initiative: are you organising events
Your charisma: how during the group interactions/events you are warm and/or well-liked/center of attention
The material value you bring: do you bring food, offer a big house for the group, pay rounds of beers
The experience you bring: do you guys go on unique adventures together, are the evening you spend together memorable
The passive value: are you attractive, your voice, body language, presence
Your power intelligence: how well you deflect attacks ("jokes") on your social status, how well you control the frame
Your leadership: how well you can help the group navigate obstacles
Your social status outside the group: are you a jet fighter pilot, a president of a country, a waiter
So there are many things that determine status in a social group. There is one that might seem kind of stupid but that does have a huge influence:
How well you perform on the activity that the group is doing.
Someone might say: "if I'm a billionaire playboy, why do I care if I'm good at hiking?"
Well, the truth is: it does matter.
I learned this at board games. Even if I invited people, cooked for them, provided them with a good time, if I lost in a game I lost social status. I could feel it.
Now in the current configuration of my social group, there are 2 activities that we share: Pétanque and rock-climbing.
I could see the rise in status of JB in the group. It was not due to any of the factor above, where he stayed pretty much the same.
It's because he was already good at Pétanque where he was born it's the national sport.
Rock-climbing: he trained a lot.
So as stupid as it sounds, your relative status in the group will increase/decrease relative to the performance you obtain in the activity.
When JB told us: "I did not lose any game in a long time", the frame is: "I'm the best among all of you (at Pétanque)", which is not far from the frame: "I'm the best among all of you", which is not far from the frame: "I'm the top dog".
Once again, I learned that you can be jobless but if you beat your friends at a board game several times you can have a high social status in a group, despite having a low social status outside the group. You don't even have to bring food, beer or whatever. If you beat everyone it shows that you're superior to everyone (in their subconscious).
That's why some men try to be the best at any activity, because their status is at stake in any activity.
If you only stick to what you're the best at, chances are you'll be the top dog most of the times.
Now let's get strategic and machiavellian. What activities should you propose your social group?
Exactly.
Activities where you have a chance to be in the top, or to outperform them.
As I said, it's the Machiavellian approach and it sounds stupid to me even now. As I like to learn and experiment with new things and being the best is not as important as having fun to me.
However, it will determine your status in the group. Because when you outperform people, you can teach them, guide them, correct them, make jokes at their expense. In short: dominate them.
That is why JB after he wins, make sure to cement this reality. He always makes sure to say something (supposedly as a joke):
"I beat you all guys well, hahahaha."
Which is a display of superiority and makes us feel inferior. So this social climbing at its finest. But it works. Because if you win, well... you won. So basically it's a strong frame to operate from.
People may resent you for displaying your superiority, but they can't deny it.
So my new way of defeating this is to say: "It's just a game". This is a kind of philosopher frame. Which he counters with "Sorry, I know this is not pro division" because he takes it so seriously, which is demeaning as it frames us as "losers/noobs" which is lower status. It is a straw man argument as he compares us to people who are not even there (the pros, which he's not but tries to still the aura).
I could go: "It's just a game, don't get so excited".
You see my point. This post is starting from the premise that status is contextual as you all know. So if you choose a context where you're a loser, guess what? You now have loser status.
So to develop a winning spirit is key to have a higher social status. People submit to winners, not to losers.
The game/activity is not only about the game/activity (there might be even only a small correlation for some people):
People take games and activities in a social group so seriously, because.... their social status in the group is at stake.
Cheers!

Hello everyone,

Here are simple truths that I would like to share with you. Status in your social group is determined by many factors:

Your connection to each member: if you have a close relation to all the members
Your initiative: are you organising events
Your charisma: how during the group interactions/events you are warm and/or well-liked/center of attention
The material value you bring: do you bring food, offer a big house for the group, pay rounds of beers
The experience you bring: do you guys go on unique adventures together, are the evening you spend together memorable
The passive value: are you attractive, your voice, body language, presence
Your power intelligence: how well you deflect attacks ("jokes") on your social status, how well you control the frame
Your leadership: how well you can help the group navigate obstacles
Your social status outside the group: are you a jet fighter pilot, a president of a country, a waiter

So there are many things that determine status in a social group. There is one that might seem kind of stupid but that does have a huge influence:

How well you perform on the activity that the group is doing.

Someone might say: "if I'm a billionaire playboy, why do I care if I'm good at hiking?"

Well, the truth is: it does matter.

I learned this at board games. Even if I invited people, cooked for them, provided them with a good time, if I lost in a game I lost social status. I could feel it.

Now in the current configuration of my social group, there are 2 activities that we share: Pétanque and rock-climbing.

I could see the rise in status of JB in the group. It was not due to any of the factor above, where he stayed pretty much the same.

It's because he was already good at Pétanque where he was born it's the national sport.

Rock-climbing: he trained a lot.

So as stupid as it sounds, your relative status in the group will increase/decrease relative to the performance you obtain in the activity.

When JB told us: "I did not lose any game in a long time", the frame is: "I'm the best among all of you (at Pétanque)", which is not far from the frame: "I'm the best among all of you", which is not far from the frame: "I'm the top dog".

Once again, I learned that you can be jobless but if you beat your friends at a board game several times you can have a high social status in a group, despite having a low social status outside the group. You don't even have to bring food, beer or whatever. If you beat everyone it shows that you're superior to everyone (in their subconscious).

That's why some men try to be the best at any activity, because their status is at stake in any activity.

If you only stick to what you're the best at, chances are you'll be the top dog most of the times.

Now let's get strategic and machiavellian. What activities should you propose your social group?

Exactly.

Activities where you have a chance to be in the top, or to outperform them.

As I said, it's the Machiavellian approach and it sounds stupid to me even now. As I like to learn and experiment with new things and being the best is not as important as having fun to me.

However, it will determine your status in the group. Because when you outperform people, you can teach them, guide them, correct them, make jokes at their expense. In short: dominate them.

That is why JB after he wins, make sure to cement this reality. He always makes sure to say something (supposedly as a joke):

"I beat you all guys well, hahahaha."

Which is a display of superiority and makes us feel inferior. So this social climbing at its finest. But it works. Because if you win, well... you won. So basically it's a strong frame to operate from.

People may resent you for displaying your superiority, but they can't deny it.

So my new way of defeating this is to say: "It's just a game". This is a kind of philosopher frame. Which he counters with "Sorry, I know this is not pro division" because he takes it so seriously, which is demeaning as it frames us as "losers/noobs" which is lower status. It is a straw man argument as he compares us to people who are not even there (the pros, which he's not but tries to still the aura).

I could go: "It's just a game, don't get so excited".

You see my point. This post is starting from the premise that status is contextual as you all know. So if you choose a context where you're a loser, guess what? You now have loser status.

So to develop a winning spirit is key to have a higher social status. People submit to winners, not to losers.

The game/activity is not only about the game/activity (there might be even only a small correlation for some people):

People take games and activities in a social group so seriously, because.... their social status in the group is at stake.

Cheers!

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#2 · July 18, 2022, 10:10 pm

Quote from Kavalier on July 18, 2022, 10:10 pm
Hey, John! This is P.U worthy, thanks for sharing!
I began to write this as an answer to the other thread about J.B. But now that I see that you started this awesome thread about leadership, I think my answer is best suited to this one.
I get the impression that, when interacting with JB, you are usually in a situation where there a more of his friends. In those scenarrios, JB seems to be the de-facto leader. JB, though, seems to be nasty when it comes to “leadership”. In this case, perhaps it’s better not to play the same games back on him (man, this, by the way, is so hard; I know this in my head, but I still fall for it each and every time), so as not to fuel this dynamic. Perhaps an emphasis on one-accrosses instead of one-up might work better here.

If JB acts like this to you only, it’s still possible that JB will change tack if it becomes clear that you are not struggling for leadership, so not fueling this dynamic could make him stop. And if JB acts like this to everybody, it’s probable that everyone resents it somewhat. So not playing the same games back on him and presenting yourself as an alternative positive leader/judge/provider, people would slowly gravitate towards you.
JB knows how to read power dynamics – but is not perfect. He makes big mistakes that are god-sent to you, such as saying/doing things that antagonize everyone else. And he does this all the time (for example, going to rock-climbing courses that everyone wanted to go). In the gift situation, for example, it was the perfect situation for you to emphasize “we” (the group) vs “JB”:
JB: you did not write "Happy birthday" and signed for the friend who's absent?You: (straight to JB in front of everybody): don’t say this, man, we were all thinking about you when we chose this gift for you...Or,
You (to others that overheard it, but you didn't have the chance to reply to JB directly : o look at him, we give him an awesome gift and look at how he treats us…”
I think this is so game-changing, that it could be a rule of thumb to always try to take advantage of situations where one person that we think is antagonizing us says/does something that may be demeaning to the group. Now it’s not J.B vs you anymore, it’s J.B vs the whole group (and you as the group’s stantard-bearer, because you spoke alone when nobody else did :).
Even if you are not yet known or people still don’t mind you, J.B puts himself in situations where nobody will stand up for him. In situations like these, even if you go overboard (as long as it’s minimally justified), people will still be at your side if everyone else is offended. One should be very careful as not to single himself out of the group, because people LOVE displays of aggression. We hate in-group aggression. But we love aggression against others (the “not-wes”). Not to say this should be a go-to strategy; but it’s good to know this because it’s a good reminder for ourselves never to do what JB is doing because this is such a stupidity, that countless rulers in the past – e.g Roman History - were and still are being murdered because of things like this.
Perhaps you could bring more people that are closer to you when you interact with JB. Lucio suggested this strategy to Emily, and I had an a-ha moment reading that... This is ingenious. That’s exactly how Texas became the 28th U.S State.
I really don’t think that groups of friends should be approached as a struggle for leadership. But I think it’s important to present ourselves as “leadership material” – i.e, capable of acting like leaders when the situation calls for it – and keep leadership strictly contextual, as you put it. It's more of a "one of the leaders" mindset than the leader.

If leadership is kept contextual, and we spend time both leading and being led, then everyone in that core group of friends will be happy together. The “leaders” of the group would be more or less the core group of friends that act as the host, as the guides to the activities where everyone eles is new, as the ones that bring new people who do not know each others and make…
It’s also important to keep leadership open: people who are new to the group will naturally become part of the leadership if they frequent the group. And they may be leaders of other groups themselves (these are the best people to have in one's group, because they bring more people). High quality people are leaders themselves, and may resent it if they don't have access to power (the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution, you know...)

So, that's my chip in. Thanks, man, loved this thread.

Hey, John! This is P.U worthy, thanks for sharing!

I began to write this as an answer to the other thread about J.B. But now that I see that you started this awesome thread about leadership, I think my answer is best suited to this one.

I get the impression that, when interacting with JB, you are usually in a situation where there a more of his friends. In those scenarrios, JB seems to be the de-facto leader. JB, though, seems to be nasty when it comes to “leadership”. In this case, perhaps it’s better not to play the same games back on him (man, this, by the way, is so hard; I know this in my head, but I still fall for it each and every time), so as not to fuel this dynamic. Perhaps an emphasis on one-accrosses instead of one-up might work better here.
If JB acts like this to you only, it’s still possible that JB will change tack if it becomes clear that you are not struggling for leadership, so not fueling this dynamic could make him stop. And if JB acts like this to everybody, it’s probable that everyone resents it somewhat. So not playing the same games back on him and presenting yourself as an alternative positive leader/judge/provider, people would slowly gravitate towards you.
JB knows how to read power dynamics – but is not perfect. He makes big mistakes that are god-sent to you, such as saying/doing things that antagonize everyone else. And he does this all the time (for example, going to rock-climbing courses that everyone wanted to go). In the gift situation, for example, it was the perfect situation for you to emphasize “we” (the group) vs “JB”:
JB: you did not write "Happy birthday" and signed for the friend who's absent?You: (straight to JB in front of everybody): don’t say this, man, we were all thinking about you when we chose this gift for you...Or,
You (to others that overheard it, but you didn't have the chance to reply to JB directly : o look at him, we give him an awesome gift and look at how he treats us…”

I think this is so game-changing, that it could be a rule of thumb to always try to take advantage of situations where one person that we think is antagonizing us says/does something that may be demeaning to the group. Now it’s not J.B vs you anymore, it’s J.B vs the whole group (and you as the group’s stantard-bearer, because you spoke alone when nobody else did :).
Even if you are not yet known or people still don’t mind you, J.B puts himself in situations where nobody will stand up for him. In situations like these, even if you go overboard (as long as it’s minimally justified), people will still be at your side if everyone else is offended. One should be very careful as not to single himself out of the group, because people LOVE displays of aggression. We hate in-group aggression. But we love aggression against others (the “not-wes”). Not to say this should be a go-to strategy; but it’s good to know this because it’s a good reminder for ourselves never to do what JB is doing because this is such a stupidity, that countless rulers in the past – e.g Roman History - were and still are being murdered because of things like this.
Perhaps you could bring more people that are closer to you when you interact with JB. Lucio suggested this strategy to Emily, and I had an a-ha moment reading that... This is ingenious. That’s exactly how Texas became the 28th U.S State.

I really don’t think that groups of friends should be approached as a struggle for leadership. But I think it’s important to present ourselves as “leadership material” – i.e, capable of acting like leaders when the situation calls for it – and keep leadership strictly contextual, as you put it. It's more of a "one of the leaders" mindset than the leader.
If leadership is kept contextual, and we spend time both leading and being led, then everyone in that core group of friends will be happy together. The “leaders” of the group would be more or less the core group of friends that act as the host, as the guides to the activities where everyone eles is new, as the ones that bring new people who do not know each others and make…
It’s also important to keep leadership open: people who are new to the group will naturally become part of the leadership if they frequent the group. And they may be leaders of other groups themselves (these are the best people to have in one's group, because they bring more people). High quality people are leaders themselves, and may resent it if they don't have access to power (the bourgeoisie in the French Revolution, you know...)

So, that's my chip in. Thanks, man, loved this thread.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#3 · July 18, 2022, 10:12 pm

Great post, John!

And absolutely true, the game you play and how you perform at them have a major impact.

That impact is bigger among men and younger men, but it never stops to matter, even among adults -and it also matters more among competitive and high-power folks-.
As a matter of fact, it may matter more to lose a game among men and mixed groups, than on a date -albeit I'd still recommend men to pick games where you can beat her :)-.

Of course, strategically, even while losing or winning, you want to stay upbeat and make nothing out of it to limit the "damage" -or to look superior-, but that doesn't mean there's no damage -or gain-.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · July 18, 2022, 10:25 pm

Wow, Kavalier, such a golden post! I'm very grateful as these are golden nuggets. I would not have been able to think this from inside the situation.

I'm curious about your profession though, I like how you think.

I agree to have group of leaders that rotate. I would not mind it at all, actually that's my preferred way of doing things IF there were no one-up game among us.

It's a bit late now, I don't have enough brainpower left. Tomorrow, I'll answer point by point to your post. Thank you very very much!

Thank you, Lucio! Yes I was blind/naive to this dynamic. We're always evaluating one another of course. And games are great to compare one another. That is maybe why JB is so adamant to play Pétanque, rock climb, etc. He's eager to climb a hierarchical ladder as he cannot do it at work (I'm talking about biological drive here).

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#5 · July 18, 2022, 10:32 pm

P.S.:

This is also an important area where power-protection can work great -especially for those who havent' worked a learner and antifragile ego-.

For example, when we went go-kart with my friends and one was struggling, I:

actively -but strategically without being too obvious - built up the one who was struggling
purposefully made little of the race or times -even though I personally cared, loved to improve the times and was super driven to win-
avoided talking too much / too long about the race and instead opened a bunch of other topics
opened many fun topics and laughed at his jokes -one way to give him back social status that he lost on track-

In that sense, women who let a guy they like win at a game they're playing, are also (smartly) power protecting in a way that improves the relationship.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#6 · July 18, 2022, 10:39 pm

Yes, definitely and that's what JB is not doing. He's pushing down our throat that he won, instead of helping us save face.

He expands on the thread, over and over again, long after the game finished.

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#7 · July 18, 2022, 10:41 pm

I see.

Yeah, that's a good example of a red flag.

Not too big, in and on itself, but a small red flag nonetheless -and gets bigger if considering someone for a closer friendship-.

John Freeman and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#8 · July 18, 2022, 10:49 pm

Yes, it is. That is why I discarded him as a close friend. Friend for fun and activities but that's it. I'll learn the winning spirit from him.

He wants to make sure that we know he won and that we acknowledge it.

That removes the fun out of the game if the person reminds you that they beat you. That is why the competitiveness becomes exaggerated and removes the friendliness/fun of it.

It becomes about winning and not having fun together. I'm starting to appreciate this "will to win", but it has consequences as it amplifies competition vs collaboration.

It's about the reward by our brain at the end of the game. Nature is well designed as it wants us to win so it reinforces the behaviours that helps us dominate. I could feel it on Sunday when I won or when I win at a game. It's a good feeling but it pales compared to other feelings for me: being connected to people, being in nature, helping a child and his family.

So winning is a good drug but I'm not wired that much to respond hard to it. I respond more to connection, togetherness, growth, challenges.

So I view it as a challenge and it motivates me but the winning itself is not so pleasurable. I think I get more pain from losing that pleasure from winning. So now I realize there is some inner re-wiring to do (avoidance of threats vs going towards the reward).

Lucio Buffalmano and Kavalier have reacted to this post.

#9 · July 19, 2022, 12:21 am

Thanks, John! I'm glad I could contribute to such an inspiring post.

About my profession, currently I'm back to Uni. I'm going for a degree in Economics.

Another thing I was thinking while reading your and Lucio's answers:

Perhaps it's better to keep the bulk of the activities in the group as collaborative instead of competitive. Competition is great, sometimes, but if the majority of the things we do together is competitive, it becomes corrosive. Many traditional oriented martial arts (and money oriented ones...) avoid competition because of this, by the way.

So yeah, keeping competition to a minimum + power protecting when it happens, as Lucio suggests, go a very long way.

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

#10 · July 19, 2022, 1:14 pm

I agree with both of you, thanks!