Ferdinand Knab, The Castle Gate, 1881, oil on canvas, private collection
Feedback suggests high status socialization is of interest. That makes sense from a current year perspective. The zeitgeist and internet are so open-form that serious talk about social exclusivity and responsibility is almost shocking. More than I realized. But thinking about it, where does someone in today’s atomized-centralized world ever encounter it if not already in it? And grasping how alien “high status” is in mass culture - other than crass materialism - makes it worth a little more exploration. Substack’s brevity is perfect for focused quick hitters. Even the platform architecture lends itself to piling up pieces. So two posts - this one on some basic high and low status social pattern differences. And another on inverted representations in the House of Lies.
First, a note on morality. There are groups where moral purity = status, but general organic internet socialization isn’t them.
Niccolò Antonio Colantonio, Delivery of the Franciscan Rule, 1440-1470, oil on panel, National Museum of Capodimonte
Speaking bluntly about status - or anything related to self-respect and accountability - is a high status communication pattern. To those used to feelings and dreams over reality, it can sound harsh or derisive. Stating hard realities often gets taken personally by the lower status, with Gamma triggering at the extreme. So bluntly, this isn’t moral judgment in the deontological sense. There is a moral dimension - Beauty and Good connect if you go high enough - but that’s more abstract. My contempt comes from disrespect more than moral abhorrence. High status social practices aren’t soft or self-indulgent. The self-mastery that empowers actual confidence and humility takes effort and practice. There are times when you don’t feel like being gracious or combative when called to be. Some people are objectively better than I am - people I admire, not resent. [Slugs that covet the rewards without playing] signify as the exact opposite of [attractive people in a high status group]. They are contemptible. Pretending they aren’t encourages more of it. Repulsion for weak character being the other side of the respect for self and peers coin.
Observation - high status people understand their value to the point of erring on the side of overvaluing it.
Antonio Canova, Achilles Delivering Briseis to Agamemnon's Heralds, between 1787 and 1790, gypsum, Museo Correr, Venice. He obeys the humiliating command because he’s high status. Then he exacts an enormous price for the same reasons.
I’ve destroyed opportunities at considerable personal cost – and a mind-numbing hum of kibitzing – rather than accept perceived mistreatment. That’s not self-pedestalizing. It’s an admission that self-esteem doesn’t prevent mistakes. Erring on the side of overvaluing is still erring - just a different kind. Abundance/scarcity distinction – blowing everything up on principle is infinitely less terrifying when something new is always around the corner. That’s the internal process. But status exists in the eyes of others. It reads externally as fearlessness and confidence. By the same measure, commitment is more esteemed if it’s not compelled by need and fear. Here’s where morality does come in. A moral person who honestly recognizes their value has internal standards they have to meet to be at peace. It’s easy to see why Gammas are so tortured – failing to live up to your own code stings anyone. It’s a big reason why high status people take commitments and responsibilities – formal and informal – so seriously. Guilt and shame suck. And that reads contextually as honor and dignity.
The Return of the Crusader, 12th century, stone, Église des Cordeliers, Nancy
An entire high status persona comes from one simple attitude towards yourself. And it extends socially because it’s intolerable to be too close to people that aren’t. The one who stands out from the timid clucking with “dude, what choice did you have? I’d had done the same. Let me know if you need anything” is the one that sticks. Note that this is independent of basic personality types beyond self-valuation. Organic high status social groups need different characters to coalesce. Idea…
Social status is the honest external manifestation of internal status.
Internal status sounds oxymoronic. Status as a concept is implicitly relational - relative to some other person or group of people. A hierarchical continuum. That’s what makes it easy to see socially. But other than the possessed, internal worlds are singular. Internal status has to be [degree of realizable self-valuation] relative to the general population. Realizable meaning the fruits – your real social presence in word and deed. This isn’t Gamma delusion. It’s honest - the proper alignment between high self-worth and high character. The extent to which self-worth is backed up externally as confidence, competence, honor, and so forth. It’s qualitative, but who cares? So is human experience. High inner status - high honest self-respect and valuation - is visible in the certainty and tranquility that comes from harmonizing life and values.
Jacques-Louis David, Oath of the Horatii, 1784, oil on canvas, Louvre, Paris
What does this say about low status patterns? Can’t say specifically - a lot of factors go into those. Imprinting, character, life experience, talent, and so forth. In general, the the opposite does seem to hold. Low self-valuation leads to accepting sub-optimal situations out of perceived social necessity. A lot of obnoxious behavior can follow - imposter syndrome and posturing. Vacillation and neediness. Inability either to identify self-interest or to act on it. Whining about the same easily resolved issue forever. Logically, low self-valuation makes some sort of fearfulness inevitable. Some sort because people will act it out differently. But in any case, inner phantasy crumbles when reality gets real. How you respond to duress reveals what you really think you are. If you’re small in your own private inner honest estimation, rolling with the herd makes sense. Basic r/K behavior, really. It’s human nature to adapt to necessary compromises. But the result is two totally different sets of values, assumptions, attitudes, and reflexes.
Foxflight Studios, Warren of Snares Evil series, 2017. Graphic designs based on the Warren of the Shining Wire from Watership Down
This doesn’t really matter much in real life because of social stratification. On two different status metrics - socio-economic class and personal character. The first is different. Extreme differences in wealth lead to separate societies with everything that comes with that. The second is the behavior I’ve been discussing. They overlapped in the past - high class society prizing decorum and self-possession. It’s changed now though - in beast media culture, the elites are often pathetic cretins. The old meaning is still there in the modern words classy or classless. Keeping it simple, both create barriers and disincentives that minimize friction in real life. However measured, high and low don’t mix much socially. No access to each other outside very specific circumstances - some work connection to the manor, or being honored for doing something at a banquet.
On the internet, it’s completely different. That universal access thing is way more significant a factor than it seems at first.
Frontispiece from The Works of Apuleius with a portrait of Apuleius, Pamphile changing into an owl & the Golden Ass, Bohn's Classical Library edition, 1902 (1866)
Or put another way…
Value judgments aside, high and low social patterns are just totally different. They share a common landmass and some basic political ideas, so they’re not totally alien. But they really don’t register to each other. Mockery is from a distance, as an in-grouping ritual. There’s superficial envy that’s just covetousness. Not driven by delusion as identity like Gamma obsession. If archetypal Delta Bob Cratchit were less saintly, he’d envy Scrooge for his money and how it would solve “all his life’s problems”. He wouldn’t burn with unquenchable desire to be Scrooge and obsess over his iniquities until the unrequited hatred made him lose his grip on reality. There’s a difference.
On the internet, high and low are thrown anonymously into the same spaces. Both socialization patterns play out organically side-by-side. This can be off-putting - various block functions are like little bits of manna. It can also be wonderful. Many dislike trash culture but don’t know how to chart a course to the good, beautiful, and true. The internet gives access to people and patterns otherwise totally unavailable, including direct engagement. For many, it’s their first exposure to actual high status characters. Frustrated Bravos and Deltas can find wagons to hitch to. Far larger quality communities can build organically than possible in real life. And real life communities can network and augment. All magical unless the friction between high and low status patterns → envy and animus.
Ted Jones, Envy, 1999, print on paper
Ordinary friction isn’t a big deal. People who think something’s stupid, frustrating, or pretentious tend to drift away. The envy is a different matter. When everyone sees everyone, there’s no hiding interactions or relative quality. For a Gamma, the gap between delusional self-image and objective reactions is a major problem. They can’t just drift away from a high status group like other profiles. Their fake identities require belonging. Loss of interest is impossible. But they have none of the traits. So even if they hang around and keep the posturing below the getting smoked out threshold, the inner festering is unchecked. I suspect hanging around pretending to complement someone you’ve come to hate is awful. Constant reminders of the cruelty and injustice of not recognizing the specialness.
Edvard Munch, Jealousy IV, 1930 , lithograph on medium heavy cream paper, private collection
That’s good for now. Honest self-worth is a real fork. That’s something anyone can work on, if they’re willing to make an effort. FWIW, it’s also something any legitimately respectable person on the internet that you admire has done. I’m going to follow this post with more specific observations on why high status socialization can seem unexpected when actually encountered. Think of all the inverted Pedowood archetypes - call then fractitypes - used to degrade cultural standards. Not one has been as consistently upheld and never deconstructed as the “high status” villain. Makes sense - no other one parasitizes resentment for social corrosion so perfectly.*
* Daniel is absolutely an Alpha. It’s what makes the clash so interesting.
So much GOLD here. Thank you.
"the proper alignment between high self-worth and high character"
Said alignment leads to the remarkable phenomenon known as "personal magnetism."
This is interesting. I started to think about guilt and shame. About apologies. To apologize to a friend, it is to show that you still believe in mutual errors. You've done something wrong, and you show guilt to your friend. Because you wish to believe in mutual faith in the future. To not apologize, for the same lack of deed, it is to show that you have no duty to fulfill to the friend.
Shame is the very close to the former thing. If you show that you've not done wrong, but that you are the error, then you show shame to your friend. Because you wish to be something else than what you are, in your mutual set of beliefs. To be shameless, it is to show that you're right, you are the person you should be, despite someone else's accusation.