Status in Relationships
The following chapters are exerpts from Fibonacci Man and the Meaning of Life: Essays in the Life Sciences. The book will be published in 2020 by World Scientific Publishing Company of Singapore.
The author is Leslie M. Golden of Oak Park, Illinois.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
The Role of Status in Personal Relationships
Psychologists have a difficult job. Understanding the function of the complex human brain in developing a personality and relationships may be beyond our limited cerebral abilities. Although mathematics provides an invaluable tool in the physical sciences, psychologists do not transcend applying linear models in their work. Study after study concludes with the presentation of correlation coefficients, although every statistics book you will pick up states that such can be applied only to linearly-related variables. I don’t think that phenomena studied in psychology obey linear relationships. Here I want to discuss a concept in relationships that is overlooked by psychologists, status. Zoologists study the concept, but status in animals results largely from physical attributes such as size, extent of plumage, brightness of colors, length of antlers and horns, loudness of bellows, and so on. These are all inherited traits. Status in humans results from those, as well as acquired traits. It’s a worthy subject to investigate. Status, we believe, is the single most important element in human relationships. We will begin, in the scientific tradition, by carefully defining our terms. Then we will consider the dual modes of brain processing to make important discoveries about how status can affect relationships. Once we’ve performed those tasks, we discuss personal status, the standing one possesses as a result of the person’s intrinsic We’ll provide a list of such. We then discuss interactive status, the manner in which individuals manifest their personal statuses and relate based on their personal statuses. We provide physical and vocal attributes that communicate high and low status. It will become clear that whereas intrinsic attributes can be discussed in measurable tangibles, such as wealth, college degrees, and appearance, interactive status is manifested in transitory observables, namely manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. Words are the carrier wave of what you are trying to communicate. Depending on how you deliver the same words, including such elements of physicalization, you can be baron or serf, powerful or sniveling, captain of industry or dishwasher, secure or insecure. Certainly, you don’t even need words, you can use gibberish.
Our Analytical Approach to Status
We distinguish two types of status, the personal status that one possesses based on intrinsic attributes such as appearance, wealth, and social standing, and interactive status, based on manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. We will find that the two modes of brain processing, the analytical sequential left-mode, and the holistic, non-linear right-mode, both establish status. The former enables individuals to determine their relative personal statuses. The latter communicates that status physically and effects interactive status changes. Both modes of brain processing find relevance in discussions of status. The level of intrinsic attributes that define personal status results from left-brain processing of information. In contrast, the manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language which define interactive status are communicated, received, and analyzed by right-mode processing. It’s important to be aware of the distinction. In short, this will be an analytical study of status. As we will see, factors other than the actual words establish status. These include manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. Indeed, utilizing such can alter the status that the words themselves communicate. Now that we have a general idea of what we mean by status, let’s begin its study. . What Do We Mean by “Status”?: Some Terms
We would like to be able to discriminate among individuals possessing different statuses. If we treat this subject analytically, rigorously, we first should introduce some jargon, specific terms to which we can refer in our study. Then we can determine what we mean by “status.” Let’s therefore introduce some terms. From the outset, we must clearly distinguish between an individual’s personal status and interactive status. The former results from the intrinsic attributes the individual possesses, those with which one is born and those that are acquired throughout life. These include, for examples, intelligence, height, education, and wealth. I could have called it “intrinsic status” but then it would beg to be distinguished from “extrinsic status,” and I simply prefer not to use that term, preferring “interactive status.” An individual’s total personal status results from some complex combination of his various intrinsic attributes. A list of some such intrinsic attributes is presented in Chapter 18. Some might argue that inherited attributes, obtained from circumstances of birth, should be distinguished from acquired attributes. Then we could apply the electrical engineering and physics concept of a black box: The inherited input is transformed through life experiences into an output, the individual’s personal status. I, however, don’t think the distinction is valuable in the context of understanding the dynamics of status. Certainly certain attributes are inherited. Aspects of appearance, for one, are inherited. Height is largely inherited, with nutrition having an important but secondary effect. Beauty is inherited, unless you choose cosmetic surgery, nutritional supplements, make-up, vacations in the Bahamas, teeth whitening, and dedicated physical exercise. If you think that blue-eyed individuals get cast favorably over brown-eyed individuals, and you happen to be brown-eyed, even this inherited trait can be altered by colored contact lenses. Intelligence is inherited. Becoming educated, an acquired attribute, however, stimulates the mind. Concerning wealth, you are born into a family and it might be poor, middle income, or wealthy. Your life choices and acquired skills, however, can lead you greatly change the amount of wealth you possess, for better or worse. Just from examining those three attributes, we must conclude that the distinction between inherited and acquired attributes is fuzzy. I believe that attempts to distinguish other attributes on whether they are inherited or acquired would also prove to be of no value to us. The brain of the human being is simply too complex. We will therefore consider that personal status is based on intrinsic attributes, a general term including attributes gained both from inheritance and life experiences. An individual’s interactive status, in contrast to personal status, is displayed by the manner in which the individual relates to others physically, a combination of the manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. Indeed, as gibberish exercises alone show, the denotation of the words spoken convey less of a given interactive status than the first of these factors, the manner and quality of speech. One need look no further than the experiences of the Two-Headed Monster on Sesame Street. Outside of such as the occasional “me no got” or “no,” they speak entirely in gibberish, but what they are communicating, via the manner and quality of speech, is clear even to the pre-schooler. And others who may . . . errrr, occasionally . . . watch the program. In this chapter, we will elaborate on these concepts. The distinction between personal and intrinsic status based on some characteristics can be blurred. You, for example, are born with a tenor, baritone, or bass voice if a male, or a tenor, alto, or soprano voice if a female. That quality of voice can be altered depending on your interaction, stress, for example, tending to raise the pitch of a voice. Again, if you in later life develop spinal curvature, that cannot be distinguished from the sulking posture of who finds himself humiliated. In general, however, we can distinguish between personal and interactive status. It’s also important to distinguish the amount of time needed to acquire attributes of personal and interactive status. Changing your appearance takes hours, days, or even months. Getting educated takes years. Becoming wealthy can take a lifetime. Generally, acquiring attributes of personal status takes a long time. In an interaction, they will not usually change. Of course, exceptions occur, Pinocchio coming to mind. In contrast, elements of interactive status change in the wink of an eye. The low status individual stutters or avoids looking at the other individual when confronted with an uneasy situation. The high status individual rears up his head or squints his eyes when insulted.
The Blurring Between Intrinsic Attributes and Interactive Status
One’s intrinsic attributes, for examples, one’s physical attributes and wealth, can strongly influence one’s interactive status. Physical attributes, a regression to our pre-hominid state, establishes status in real life. Consider height. A study once showed that the beginning salaries of Harvard Law School graduates was associated not with their grade point averages, areas of concentration, or undergraduate colleges, but with their height. Those salaries influence how they interact with their lower-paid law firm associates. In other words, their personal status, based on the intrinsic attributes of height and wealth, influenced their interactive status. Only two of our American presidents have been shorter than six feet tall. Confucius was a giant among a diminutive race. Charles de Gaulle was a huge man. Does this mean that these large individuals possessed superior legal acumen or superior leadership skills? Perhaps. Yet one has a nagging feeling, buttressed by the less-than-stellar administrations of many of our presidents, that the intrinsic attribute of height provided high personal status which led to their position of leadership in their interactive status. Other physical attributes also strongly influence interactive status in real life. No. They attained these powerful positions, creating high personal status in that intrinsic attribute, by virtue of their height. Such individuals possess high interactive status in relation to their subordinates. Other physical attributes also strongly influence interactive status. Assuming they were members, who would you elect president of your Moose Lodge, the Jolly Green Giant or the Pillsbury Doughboy? The great statesman Winston Churchill must be mentioned in this context. Being only 5' 6", his significant role in modern history resulted from the intrinsic attributes of his character and wisdom. The similar distinction exists with, for a second example, wealth. If you happen to meet a billionaire at a party, you can bet that you won’t interrupt him in conversation or reach to remove the lint on his tuxedo. His personal status influences his interactive status. Now that we have distinguished personal status and interactive status, we can more clearly discuss other aspects of status. We do that in the next chapter.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Personal Status
Relative Personal Status
The most important factor defining the relationship between two individuals is their relative personal status, the difference in personal status between them, lower, higher, or equal. Your intrinsic attributes, creating your personal status, stand alone, but your relationships will others depend also on their intrinsic attributes. Indeed, the word “relationship” comes from the same root as the word “relative.” A relationship determines how two individuals interact, and it’s obvious that many of the intrinsic attributes relevant in a relationship are relative measures. They govern relationships as surely as blood relationship. In this way, attributes of personal status such as age, physical appearance, and wealth must be considered as relative attributes. Two colleagues in a think tank, two ball players on the same team, two bridge partners, and so on can have the same set of intrinsic attributes determining their personal statuses but large differences in the status they possess in those attributes. The multi-millionaire, the beauty queen, and the university professor all have high personal status, but they are lower in personal status than the billionaire, the beauty queen who becomes Miss Universe, and the university professor who holds an endowed chair. In the animal kingdom, relative personal status results in the pecking order, the most important factor defining animal relationships. These concepts pervade all sentient beings. That is, to almost coin a phrase, it’s all relative. The differences in relative status can vary in magnitude. If two individuals differ only slightly in personal status, for example, two benchwarmers on a little league team, they will interact differently from two individuals who differ greatly in personal status, for example, a baron and his serf. As we will discuss later in this chapter, the former can be considered the basis of tragedy whereas the latter can be considered the basis of comedy. This magnitude distinction is particularly important involving more than two individuals. If a small difference in personal or interactive status exists between person A and person B, and a large difference in personal or interactive status exists between person A and person C, then we can say that person B has higher personal or interactive status than person C. In logic this is one type of a transitive relation. I think that people are aware of such differences in status when they enter a situation and that it determines their relative status and how they relate to the others. If an art critic (A) and art collector (C), for example, were discussing a painting in an art gallery, and a third person, an artist (B), enters, his personal status relative to the critic and the art collector will determine his behavior. Imagine two different scenarios of personal status. In the first, say the art critic has much higher personal status in the intrinsic attribute of art skill than the art collector. The entering artist could be distinguished, of great renown, and the critic could be his former art student roommate who failed as an artist. In this case, the artist would have higher personal status and the critic lower personal status in the intrinsic attribute of art skill, B > A > C. This would govern how the artist relates to the art collector as well as to the critic. On the other hand, the entering artist, although distinguished, could be starving, and the art collector could be a wealthy patron of the arts while the art critic could have a nice salary at his newspaper. In this case, the artist would have low personal status and the art collector would have high personal status in the intrinsic attribute of wealth, C > A > B. The artist’s behavior, unless he is brain damaged, will clearly differ in the two cases.
Absolute Status
To state that one’s total status results from one’s attributes is incorrect. If we say that, we’re forgetting that it is the relative personal status that governs the relationship. In other words, an individual’s total personal status, which we defined earlier, must also be considered in relative terms. One will have a higher or lower personal status than another individual based on their relative total personal status. In this context, we have to mention the concept of absolute personal status. In short, we should avoid labeling an intrinsic attribute as providing an individual as having some sort of absolute personal status. Only relative status governs relationships. We are tempted to do so if we, as individuals, view ourselves as having a higher status than the individual in question. We feel superior to, that is, of higher status than, homeless people, disfigured people, slovenly-dressed people, and so on, because we feel that on some absolute scale they are inferior. That’s wrong, however. A prostitute, for example, is normally considered a low status individual compared to you or me. At least, I would hope so. Such would be considered a low status individual compared to, say, a writer. Yet, in W. Somerset Maugham’s Of Human Bondage, the prostitute, Mildred, dominates the love-lorn club-footed writer, Philip. We would be tempted to consider both as having some sort of absolute low status, Mildred, as the prostitute, and Philip because of his infirmity. Yet, such a judgment serves no purpose, it being only the relative status that matters. Mildred’s achieves her high status relative to Philip because of her appearance. Mildred dominates because she and Philip interact on the basis of the intrinsic attribute of sexual attractiveness. She’s got the higher status there. If the novel had concerned Mildred’s desire to become a writer, then Philip would have had the higher status, as a practicing writer, on the intrinsic attribute of literacy or writing ability, however you might choose to call it. It’s the relative status in context that governs the relationship and why Mildred dominates. Avoiding designation of an absolute status also means that we can’t consider someone possessing some desirable (positive) or repugnant (negative) attribute. Examples in which both individuals have repugnant intrinsic attributes include the recidivist ex-con and the corrupt prosecutor, Scarlett O’Hara and Brett Butler, and a prostitute and the alcoholic prominent lawyer who is her client. In an April, 2000, episode of the new version of the television series One Step Beyond, the disgraced physician Jack and the alien monster inhabiting the abdomen of London prostitutes, victims of Jack when he discovers their occupation, both find themselves stranded in unsympathetic worlds, possessing the same low relative status based on two different intrinsic attributes, occupation (low relative status for the physician) and appearance (low relative status for the alien monster). In all cases, only the relative personal status based on the intrinsic attribute governs the relationship. Psychologists refer to high and low status as dominance and submission, rather than status, but they reflect the same relative concept. We will see in Chapter Three that elements of interactive status, although harder to define, are also relative.
Let’s provide for easy reference the terms we’ve introduced:
Personal status results from the intrinsic attributes the individual possesses, those with which one is born and those that are acquired throughout life. Total personal status results from the combination of such attributes.
Interactive status refers to the manner in which individuals relate to each other based on the manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language.
Relative status refers to the difference in personal or interactive status between two individuals, lower, higher, or equal.
Personal Relative Status Changes and Context: Dynamic Relationships
The multiple intrinsic attributes determining total personal status controls how individuals interact. Their interactions result from more than one intrinsic attribute, the qualities that we define as determining an individual’s total personal status. A constant readjustment of status occurs as the individuals relate based on different intrinsic attributes. The drive exists in all beings to achieve the highest status possible given their intrinsic attributes. That is the psychological basis for dynamic relationships.
As suggested in the hypothetical art gallery interaction earlier, which of two individuals has the greater total personal status depends on the context of their interaction. This context can be as simple as the subject of their conversation or an actual change of environment. Instead of considering an artist entering during the conversation between the art critic and art collector, consider simply the artist and the art critic. As a skilled artist, the critic has lower relative status based on the intrinsic attribute of art skill, having failed in that pursuit. The critic, however, has higher relative status on the basis of the intrinsic attributes of wealth and employment, having a full-time job working for a newspaper whereas the artist lives from showing to showing, hoping to make a sale to pay his rent. If the conversation between them concerns technique, the artist will have the higher status position. If the conversation between them turns to vacationing in Tuscany, the starving artist can only think of ordering a pizza. In other words, because they possess various intrinsic attributes, the individual having the higher status as they interact depends on which intrinsic attribute is relevant at the moment. The context determines who gains the upper hand. On the other hand, which individual has the higher status depends on which intrinsic attribute is relevant in that environment, the physical context of our interaction. Let’s examine this concept of environmental context with another example. Table 1 provides some intrinsic attributes that determine personal status. If you pick a single particular intrinsic attribute, say Fraternal or Social Club Standing, then at the Raccoon Lodge Ralph Kramden will have higher status than Norton. If, you consider two intrinsic attributes that determine personal status, say Raccoon Lodge standing and artist fees for works, then veteran lodge member Ralph will have a higher personal status based on the former than newly elected member Phillipe Maurice d’Golden, my artist nom de brush, but a lower personal status based on the latter because of the multi-million fees for my grammar school finger paint works. If we’re at the Lodge, Ralph has the higher personal status. If we begin considering quality of art work, I have the higher personal status. More than two attributes, as in the first example, can contribute to an individual’s total status and that which is dominant can depend on the environment. Here’s a case in which multiple intrinsic attributes are considered. I am smarter (I hope), better educated, more witty (I also hope), and, obviously, smell better and am far better looking than my garbage man. At least my fingernails are clean. He, however, knows a lot about garbage, has greater strength of muscles and probably, knowing how government unions have destroyed our once-proud American economy, has more money than me and far better health insurance. Who actually between us has the higher relative total status depends on the environment. If he and I attend a community recycling meeting, for example, he’ll have the higher status if we’re discussing what can and cannot be recycled, but if the conversation switches to how various materials chemically degrade in the landfill, I’ll have the higher status because I are smarter, by golly! If we’re at a football game, my garbage man probably has the better seat because of his vast wealth. At a hand-wrestling tournament, he’d beat me every time. If we’re at a Debutante Ball, on the other hand, I’ll be the more popular because I smell better and if we were at a convention on the possibility of extraterrestrial life the journalists will be flocking around me, not him (for reasons I cannot divulge at this time for risk of causing mass public hysteria). In our terminology, he has the relative high status based on the intrinsic attributes of garbalogy, strength, wealth, and insurance coverage. I have the relative high status based on the intrinsic attributes of intelligence, education, charm, appearance, and hygiene. Which individual has the higher personal status depends on the context as defined by the environment. For another example, imagine you are watching television at your parent’s house. They have a nice house, and you have a small apartment. They have a huge screen television and you have an old analog television with a digital converter box that gives lousy reception. Your mother has served a scrumptious dinner and, as you all watch television, you have a bowl of kiwi fruit, mandarin orange slices, and fresh figs. At your apartment you have some soggy bananas. You have relative low status based on the intrinsic attributes of wealth, health, material possessions, and, assuming your parents are happy, domestic bliss. Then the program starts discussing the inflationary universe model, which you happened to have studied in your college astronomy class with Professor Golden. Your father asks, “How can that happen?” You reply, “It’s just like a phase change between a gas and its liquid.” As dad takes a piece of kiwi fruit you have suddenly become higher status because of your education. As these examples show, the interactions between two individuals results from their relative status changing as they relate based on different intrinsic attributes. This results from a change in context, varying from the topic of conversation to a change in environment. To emphasize the important of context, we can rephrase this as: The adjustments or changes in relative status between two individuals result from which intrinsic attribute becomes relevant to the changing context. At the end of an interaction, the personal status of each of the two individuals, as determined by their intrinsic attributes, remains the same. Each, that is, retains his intrinsic attributes, wealth, educational level, and so on. Who has “won” in the sense of ending the interaction with the higher status depends on both a) the time spent interacting based on different intrinsic attributes and the magnitude of the relative status between the two in those attributes, and b) which individual possesses the higher status in the intrinsic attribute relevant to the final context. Enabling us to come to this realization motivates us to list some intrinsic attributes, provided later in Table 1. The initial set of intrinsic attributes of the various individuals interacting can be compared to the initial conditions of a system in physics, the starting point from which evolution of the system will proceed. The dynamic quality of the relationships, however, remains. As the context changes, the individuals relate on the basis of different intrinsic attributes
Magnitude of Status Changes; Status Reversals
In most interactions, the status changes as the individuals relate based on different intrinsic attributes are small and the two parties retain their positions of relative high and low status. In other cases, however, the status change is so great that an actual status reversal occurs. The relatively high status individual has become the relatively low status individual. This can occur multiple times, to the extent that the individuals alternate positions of high and low status. Many terms in athletics refer to this. A “comeback,” for example, refers to a player in a relative low status position gaining the upper hand, that is, a relative high status position. A rally, scoring points, and gaining “momentum” signify attaining relative high status. Going on the defensive, such as in facing checkmate, signifies falling to a relative low status. In an interaction of manipulation, the individual who begins in the lower status of being manipulated can lie in wait for the sneak attack and with one stroke gain the upper hand, obtaining the higher status. We have now, in the context of a dynamic relationship, introduced two new terms. Status changes provides the dynamic element of a relationship, how the relationship between two individuals changes as they relate based on different intrinsic attributes. In status reversal, the status change results in the high and low status individuals switching positions.
Some Intrinsic Attributes
The relevant intrinsic attribute that governs the relative personal status depends on the words spoken, and one and only one intrinsic attribute governs the relationship at a given moment. In Chapter Three, where we discuss interactive status, we will discuss individuals interacting based on multiple intrinsic attributes simultaneously. For the time being, we’ll repeat that this results from the stimuli arising from manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language, in addition to language.
Table 1. Some Intrinsic Attributes That Determine Personal Status
Actor Skill Hygiene Age Intelligence Appearance Jewelry Worth Artist Fees for Works Lawyer Influence Athleticism Life Experience Automobile Make and Model Marital Status Baseball Player Statistics Maturity Birth Caste Military Medals Bridge Player Ranking Moose Lodge Tenure Compassion Occupation Cunning Politeness Education and Knowledge Political Power Elephant Rank in Herd Position on Masthead Emotional Stability, Happiness Predator Dominance Over Prey Ethnicity Professor Publications Experience and Rank Residence Neighborhood Fame Respect of Peers Feathers in Head Dress Romantic Success Fighter Pilot Kills Scholarly Authority Formal Educational Level Sensitivity Fraternal or Social Club Standing Smile Graciousness Social Media Followers Grammy Award Nominations Social Standing Grooming Speech Patterns & Accent Height Wardrobe Honor Wealth, Economic Power Housing World Travel
Table 1 presents, in no particular order, some of the many intrinsic attributes that create personal status. An individual’s total personal status results from many attributes: As complex as the human personality is, this list of intrinsic attributes is obviously not all-inclusive. It includes a wide range of attributes, from personality characteristics to education. Some are specific, such as Grammy award nominations, to general, emotional stability. Inevitably some overlap will occur between attributes, unavoidable with the complexity of the human personality. Table 1 is created not to be comprehensive but as a guide to the vast intrinsic attributes that we possess which establish relative status. I simplistically provide columns of low, average, and high status. The meaning of such measures differs, of course, among the various attributes. I include the elephant reference to remind us that such issues of status exist throughout the animal kingdom, not because I expect elephants to be trotting to their local bookstore to buy this book (although that would be nice). In the human animal kingdom, determination of status results from many attributes. Some of these have counterparts in the non-human animal kingdom. There, status is determined by strength, size and color of feathers, size of antlers, and the like, largely physical attributes. Some male birds attract mates by the quality of their nests. We can refer to low, average, and high personal status as resulting from these various attributes which determine relative personal status. Changing the magnitude of the differences of one or more of the attributes, from “average” versus “low” to perhaps “high” versus “low.” alters the status between two individuals. Altering the statuses in these ways, using the same exact words, changes the relative personal status. Instead of referring to low, average, and high personal status as resulting from these various attributes or we might try to make an actual quantitative assessment. For some of the attributes, making this assessment is easy. You can ascribe a number to wealth by means of net worth. You can ascribe a different level to intelligence by I.Q. Numerical values can also be provided for age, baseball statistics, social media followers, and a few others. For most, however, you can only judge the qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, differences, the motivation for introducing the terms relative status. That’s okay. We want to be able, after all, to be able to determine which of two individuals have the higher personal status, and it doesn’t have to be mathematically precise. For “formal educational level,” for example, an individual with a master’s degree has a higher status than one with a high school diploma, and you can’t ascribe a number to the difference.
The Changing of Personal Status Over Time
Earlier I briefly discussed the distinction between the amount of time needed to acquire attributes of personal status and interactive status. There I noted that changes in the former occur over days, weeks, months, years, or a lifetime. The personal status that one possesses over a period of time changes; it does not remain stagnant. We note the obvious fact that the intrinsic attributes that create personal status change with time. One’s personal status changes independently of relationships. This is no surprise. You accomplish a major increase or decrease in an intrinsic attribute if you win the lottery, get tenure, sign a Major League Baseball contract, marry a Rockefeller, or successfully defend your Ph.D dissertation. Your personal status jumps in the particular attribute. On the other hand, if your wife leaves you for the mailman, you get arrested for bank fraud, or lose all your hair overnight as a result of “cranial boil infestation” (a new disease, which you may in the future hear on radio ads as the dreaded “CBI”), your status dives. Life, indeed, might be considered as a life-time narrative of attempting to, as I said, increase your status. That’s what life is about, one might say, the changes you experience in status. This can be done in major steps, by improving your status in education, employment, marriage, inheritance, appearance, and so on. In life, you can also lose status in major steps, for examples, by being convicted of a crime, getting divorced, experiencing a disfiguring accident, job demotion, loss of the value of your stock portfolio, and so on. More frequently, you will accomplish minor increases or decreases in intrinsic attributes. Your status may increase if the audience laughs at your jokes, you get a new hair-do, wear a new suit, successfully shoplift a fine gift for your new girlfriend (without getting caught), or make a fine dinner, and it may decrease if your face displays a new pimple, you get a D on the algebra test, break your glasses, stumble on the sidewalk, or get your paper on global warming rejected. The story of George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion and its stage and film version, My Fair Lady, can be described as based on the changing of relative status between educated men of fine diction, and an uneducated, cockney-voiced flower woman of charm. In the intrinsic attributes of education, occupation, residence neighborhood, social standing, speech, wardrobe, wealth, and others, Professor Henry Higgins, a professor of phonetics, and his sidekick, fellow phoneticist Colonel Hugh Pickering, have higher status than Eliza Doolittle. Eliza has more personal charm and attractiveness. As the script proceeds over weeks and months, the relative status of Eliza rises in speech and dress until becoming the equal or even surpassing those of her instructors until her higher status charm enables her to capture Professor Higgins. As an example from real life, a professor of mine in the astronomy department at Berkeley was known for the discovery she had made in her Ph.D research. Unfortunately, it was later shown that her calculations were wrong. She retired to a life in Mallorca. That’s a fall in status based on the intrinsic attribute of respect of peers and employment. Interestingly enough, in recent years her hypothesis has proven to be correct! Yea! Because the personal statuses of all individuals change with time, the relative personal status between two individuals also changes with time. In life, the individual tries either to increase his status or retain his status when faced with adversity. It makes sense that no one willingly tries to decrease their status. The thief, although he may face jail time, is trying to increase his status by acquiring more wealth.
Summary
Let’s summarize our discussion of personal status. An individual possesses a relative personal status with respect to another based on numerous intrinsic attributes. Although those intrinsic attributes do not change over the time span of an interaction, one’s personal status changes over time as those intrinsic attributes can change. In an interaction, status changes occur as the individuals interact based on different intrinsic attributes. This provides a dynamic quality to the interaction. Sometimes these changes lead to a reversal in status between the two. Multiple intrinsic attributes affect the relative status simultaneously.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
Interactive Status
Introduction: Personal Status Compared to Interactive Status
In Chapter 17 and Chapter 18 we analyzed what we mean by personal status. We distinguished personal status from interactive status. We then discussed the important concept of relative personal status and showed how the relative personal status between two individuals changes and can actually reverse. We showed that it can change as the personal status of the individuals evolves over time. The second type of status, interactive status, results from the physical manifestation of relative personal status. Manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language communicate that status to the other individuals and to the audience. Whereas intrinsic attributes can be measured in measurable tangibles, such as wealth, college degrees, and appearance, interactive status is manifested in transitory observables that can be directed, namely manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. Although we discussed only personal status in Chapter 17 and Chapter 18, the concepts of relative status, status changes, and status reversals also apply to interactive status. We’ve distinguished personal and interactive status based on the amount of time needed to acquire intrinsic attributes, days to a lifetime, compared to changes in interactive status occurring over seconds. We can also distinguish between relative personal and relative interactive status based on the ease of identifying which of two individuals has the higher status. As we’ve seen, one can fairly easily evaluate relative personal status. Joe has more money than Al. Clarice has nicer hair than Zelda. Dane is head of surgery whereas Konstantin is a first-year resident. Baron von Schlitzendopple has more horses than his serf Enoch. Quantifying relative interactive status provides a greater challenge. Although harder to define, however, elements of interactive status are also relative. Despite this, when two individuals interact most observers can distinguish who possesses the higher relative interactive status. The drive exists in all beings to achieve the highest status possible given intrinsic attributes. Every inflection in your speech and every movement that you make results from your status relative to the individual with whom you are interacting. In Chapter 17 and Chapter 18, as noted, we dealt with the words spoken. In that context, the relevant intrinsic attribute that governs the relative personal status depends on the words spoken, and one and only one intrinsic attribute governs the relationship at a given moment. Here will discuss the individuals interacting based on multiple intrinsic attributes simultaneously. This results from the stimuli arising from manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language, in addition to language. When in Chapter 17 and Chapter 18 we discussed individuals' interaction changing as they relate based on one and only one different intrinsic attribute at a given moment, we therefore over-simplified the concept of status. Because human beings, with our complex brains, can process multiple stimuli simultaneously, the interaction can obviously exist based simultaneously on multiple intrinsic attributes. Consider, for example, the president of the posh country club interviewing a man who desires to be a member. The president has the higher status on the intrinsic attribute of position in the country club. Let’s say that the man who desires membership was driven to the country club in a black stretch limo by a chauffeur, has a distinguished thin black moustache, and wears a humungous diamond ring. Chances are he has higher status concerning wealth and perhaps grooming. Although the conversation, the words spoken, deal with the amenities of the country club, the second intrinsic attribute, wealth, must be influencing the interaction. Similarly, let’s say two individuals, one filthy wealthy and the other stunningly attractive, are discussing a business deal. The intrinsic attribute of business acumen, the topic of the words spoken, governs who has the higher relative status. Both of the other intrinsic attributes, however, somehow must also govern which individual at a given moment has the higher status. More than two intrinsic attributes can govern the status. For a final example, the winner of the Indianapolis 500 is covered with sweat, oil, and grime, but he has gained fame and happiness. He is presented his trophy by the president of the racing association, neatly attired, securely employed, holding a prestigious position, and wealthy. Even though they are not the topic of conversation, that being athletic prowess, the intrinsic attributes of physical fitness, appearance, wealth, fame, and happiness all govern who has the higher status during the trophy presentation.
Right-Mode Brain Processing and Multiple Stimuli
As we discussed in Chapter Two, the individuals’ interaction changes as they relate based on multiple intrinsic attributes. This complexity arises from the human brain processing information in two ways. We don’t plan on a discourse on neurological physiology here, but a basic understanding of this concept of two ways of thinking will help you appreciate their respective power. In Chapter 17, we referred to the research of Roger W. Sperry involving brain functions. Left-mode processing dominates when we encounter linear, sequential data such as language, logic, and mathematical reasoning. Right-mode processing, in contrast, concerns holistic, non-linear, processing of multiple stimuli simultaneously, such as in facial recognition, drawing, and driving. As human beings evolved (or devolved if you consider our current desecration of the Earth and its animal inhabitants), facial and body language recognition, right-mode activities, ensured survival. As man's brain and culture evolved, we developed speech, and then writing and mathematics. These left-mode abilities supplanted right-mode activities as the most vital for survival. The importance of these sequential, linear activities, left-mode processing, led to left-mode dominance. Right-mode processing survives, of course. Those who paint and “lose track of time,” those who play basketball and find themselves in “a zone,” and those who drive race cars and observe that time seems to slow down experience right-mode processing. We all do it when we dream and when we drive. The segregation of mental powers isn’t complete. Neither performing arithmetic nor using language, for examples, are solely left-mode processing functions. Whereas performing precise numerical calculations is a left-mode activity, for example, arriving at approximate numerical results is a right-mode activity. In language, adherence to grammatical standards is a left-mode activity while awareness of inflection is a right-mode activity. Recognizing that right-mode processing is holistic and left-mode processing is sequential provides a clue as to how one can overcome left-mode processing. This can be accomplished by providing too many stimuli for the brain to process sequentially. We an refer to this as overloading. It occurs when you are carrying on conversations with more than one individual simultaneously, for example, at a party. Overload also occurs while driving. The driver must be aware of everything both inside and outside the car. When we analyze status, we should be aware of this concept of overload. Multiple intrinsic attributes determine relative personal status. It is difficult to sometimes determine which dominates at a given moment. When individuals speak to each other, additional stimuli are present, those we call the elements of interactive status, manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. It’s a complex phenomenon, part of our complex psychologies as human beings. Now, understanding the concept of right-mode processing, we can appreciate how complex are the changes in relative status.
Physical Manifestations of Status: Manner and Quality of Speech
Verbal language constitutes only a small fraction of the communication that occurs between individuals and between skillfully drawn individuals. Although this left-mode of the brain activity has come to dominate communication, it is a relatively recent evolutionary development. A major form of communication remains that which is processed by right-mode of the brain activity. This includes vocal characteristics, including the three attributes of sound referred to as pitch, overtones, the sum effect of which we refer to as the timbre of voice, and volume, and the additional factor of communication rate, which we will refer to as rapidity of speech. Here, we refer to volume and rapidity together as the manner of speech, and the pitch and timbre together as the quality of speech. Although the distinction is not perfect, the former two are easily varied by the speaker, whereas the latter two are genetic traits, able to be varied, but with greater effort. The vocal characteristics of pitch and tone are commonly called inflection, but all four characteristics are needed to fully describe how a given word or phrase is spoken. Acting classes refer to that which is communicated by these four means as the subtext. Non-verbal communication such as eye contact and body language, which can also be referred to as visual communication, also establishes interactive status. We will discuss these two in the next section. Table 1 presents many of the physical means by which one can communicate relative interactive status. The attributes communicate that status. Table 1 presents a number of attributes of interactive status. I provide succinct descriptions of what in each case constitutes relatively high and relatively low status. As with intrinsic attributes of personal status, some of these have counterparts in the animal kingdom. The songs of birds, their speech, constitute in part a mating ritual. If this were a psychology class, we would try to classify and analyze these various attributes. Psychologists, for those of you have taken such a class, like to classify things such as personality types. Here, though, such an attempt would prove frustrating and in the end fruitless. I personally believe that the human intellect lacks the sophistication to analyze our mental processes to allow predictive value, the goal of a scientific endeavor. . The human brain possesses an astounding ability to distinguish the frequencies of sounds. This, with our ability to form sounds with our mouth to create overtones, that is different timbres, forms the basis for using the voice to communicate status variations of pitch in inflection. Detectable frequencies range from 20 cps to 20,000 cps, an interval of more than fourteen octaves, each octave by definition resulting in a doubling of pitch. This allows detection of sounds of a far wider range than that of the human voice. Our singing voice ranges five octaves, from 49.0 cps to 1568.0 cps, corresponding to a low G four spaces below the bass clef, referred to by physicists as G1, to a high G6 on the fourth line above the treble clef, referred to as G6. Although female and male voice-mutants among us have four-octave singing ranges, including many who become professional vocalists, most individuals who sing cover a range of about one and one-half to a bit more than two octaves. In speaking, we use a more limited range of frequencies, about one octave, with the typical male range being an octave below that of females. As a result, humans speak and therefore listen and respond to a range somewhat less than two octaves, from about 75 cps to 250 cps. These frequencies correspond to the musical notes
Table 2. Physical Means of Communicating Status. Attribute Relative High Status Relative Low Status Voice pitch Low High Voice pitch, final word High Low Voice timber Pleasant, low harmonics Raspy, high harmonics, stressful Voice volume Soft Loud Voice rapidity Slow, measured Rapid Voice diction Refined Unrefined, heavy accents Speech embellishment Silent pauses between sentences and phrases Stutter, lisp, use of filler words, cracking of voice Speech structure Speak in complete sentences Speak in fractured sentences Speech continuity Interrupt others at will Allow self to be interrupted without resistance Grammatical accuracy Correct agreement and syntax Uneducated, boorish, slovenly Vocabulary Multi-syllabic, extensive, technical jargon Monosyllabic, limited, generic terms Personality attributes Controlled, aloof, serene, taciturn, boring, severe Talkative, silly, goofy, giddy, joking, desperate, nervous, crying, animated, laughing, smiling, fidgety, anxious, worrying Eye contact Staring, looking straight ahead Avoidance, looking side to side, looking down Head motion Steady Frequent movements, cracking of neck Hand position Gesturing, hands in pocket, pointing, hands over head Wringing of hands, genitals guarding, picking at ears or nose, hands to mouth, biting fingernails Facial expressions Rolling of eyes, shifting of the eyes upwards, smirk, head swagger and rotation, looking askance, staring into distance Lowering head, biting lip, pursed lips, furrowed eyebrows Emotional state Unfazed, even keeled, indifferent, imperturbable Mercurial, unstable, emotional, volatile Posture Upright, arms crossed in front of chest or hanging, legs spread open Slouching, bending at waist, curling up, genitals guarded, fall to ground and grovel Foot position Feet spread widely, feet crossed up on table Feet flat on floor, closely spaced Walking Straight ahead, with purpose, focused Sauntering, meandering, shuffling, hesitating Clothing and wardrobe Suit, business attire, neat, laundered, polished shoes Jeans, shorts, untucked shirt, slovenly, soiled, casual footwear Grooming Well-kempt, healthy-looking, clean complexion Unbathed, unshaven, untrimmed hair, stubble beard, pimples Other attributes Admiring manicure during conversation, taking phone calls, detached, being rude Sweating, scratching head, accepting abuse (Appearance — that is, inherent or prepared attributes) (Tall, trim, athletic, beautiful, short hair, clean shaven, clear skin, healthy teeth, trimmed and clean fingernails) (Short, fat, homely, slovenly, long or unkempt hair, stubble, facial outbreaks, yellowed or missing teeth, broken and dirty fingernails)
We list some of the ways in which: manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language manifest interactive status. near D two spaces below the bass clef, or D2 (73.4 cps), to near B on the first space above the bass clef, or B3 (246.9 cps). The wonder of our human brain resides in our ability to detect differences of less than 1 cps in tones of moderate duration. We are extremely sensitive to changes in voice pitch. That ability evolved as a means of survival by enabling us to communicate our emotions and relationships. It remains today, in a civilized society, as a means of establishing relative status. We have evolved to communicate emotions such as fear, anger, joy, and sadness through the pitches of our voices, as well as the volume of our voices, the rapidity of our speech, and the timbre of our voices, the result of overtones in our speech created by changing the shape of our mouth and throat and the position of our tongue. We also communicate our relationships and status in this way, whether subservient or commanding, for example, by the pitch, volume, timbre, and rapidity of our voices. Our ability to distinguish pitches evolved as a mechanism of survival and serves today to establish relative interactive status. Most individuals intuitively understand how the attributes of sound convey status. Deep voices convey higher status than high-pitched voices, perhaps because the latter expresses anxiety. Not too many successful politicians sound like Don Knotts. A pleasant speaking voice engenders affection; a grating speaking voice engenders disrespect. Speaking loudly communicates the sense that the speaker does not believe his words will be valued. Those who speak softly on the other hand, no matter what blabber they actually speak, communicate the message that their words are of such importance that listeners will be quiet and will in fact strain and lean forward to hear those words. The rapid speaker communicates the message that he fears being interrupted and that his allotted period for speaking to someone superior is winding to a close. His rapid speech implies his gratitude for being granted an audience with someone smarter, more wealthy, or more powerful. The slow speaker communicates the message that his words are well-considered and demand respect. Whether we see these forms of speech in class, in political meetings, in a wedding toast, in sales meetings, or any other endeavor, this is how speakers are judged. The pitch of a final word in a speech, an underappreciated factor, conveys resignation and defeat or optimism and victory depending on whether the pitch falls or rises. Lowering the pitch on the final word communicates sadness, resignation, defeat. On the other hand, raising the pitch on that final word communicates joy, anticipation that he will be lovingly received. You can always tell radio commercials spoken by the wife or daughter of the owner of the roofing company or car dealership as compared to a trained voice-over actor. The last words spoken are the phone number, and the final digit is always low in pitch This conveys that the speaker is happy that the uncomfortable act of delivering the commercial has been completed, a relatively low status position with respect to you, the listener. It should be conveying the sense that their roofs or used cars (“pre-owned”) will last forever and that they look forward to meeting you, a relatively high status position. That would be accomplished by uttering the final digit with a raised pitch. Try it! More importantly, employ this in the dialogues that follow. You will note that a low pitch conveys relative high status unless speaking the final word in a speech. This does not create an inconsistency. The final pitch can be considered a transition to the next speech. The low pitch signals the end of a communication, whereas the high pitch means that you, with your high status, will be providing further information. The use of filler words such as “uhh” and “umm” also convey low status. Because he believes that his thoughts are not valued, the speaker fears being interrupted and prevents that from occurring by essentially never stopping from speaking. The speaker, in contrast, who takes long pauses establishes his high status by communicating that he is of such high status that no one dares interrupt him. The full professor, for example, in a conversation with a graduate student may speak slowly with measured pauses between sentences, whereas the graduate student may use filler words such as “um” and “uh.” Use these traits to establish changes in relative status during a dialogue. In this example, if the graduate student discovers an error in the professor’s research paper, their relative status changes and now, perhaps, the professor begins to use the filler words. I remember the conversations I had while a graduate student at Berkeley with the renowned Rudolf Minkowski, a legendary astronomer from a renowned scientific family. Sitting in his office, with his piles of books and journals on his desk, he would take nearly a minute between thoughts. He would sit there, thinking, looking out into space, until his next thought would be formulated. One would never consider interrupting his thought process by speaking.
Physical Manifestations of Status: Eye Contact and Body Language
Table 1 presents many of the physical means by which one communicates elements of relative interactive status. These means of communicating status are adopted by the individual; they are not inherent physical traits and must be distinguished from inherent physical traits such as height and weight and to a lesser extent, because of the availability of surgical and topical cosmetic aids, beauty. This distinction is clear. These inherent traits can be considered intrinsic attributes. In addition, other physical traits listed such as dirty fingernails convey differences in status. For this reason, those traits are listed last and enclosed in parentheses in Table 1. We felt compelled to include them in Table 1 because of their importance. Clothing as a physical means of communicating status exists as an intermediate case. Eye contact and body language similarly communicate status. Most of the entries in Table 1 are self-explanatory. I want to discuss a couple briefly and then discuss the important concept of eye contact in greater detail. A primordial impulse among all animals is to protect the most vulnerable parts of the body, in particular, the thoracic organs and the genitals. Accordingly, keeping your hands stiffly by your side, crossed in front of you, or stuck in your pockets indicates the fear of imminent attack, more generally insecurity, a low status attribute. In contrast, gesturing while speaking sends the message that you don’t need your hands and arms for protection. Using both hands in gesturing indicates even greater extent of the high status attributes of confidence and security. Leaning back in your chair, in effect exposing the organs and especially the genitals, is a high status act. You fear no attack. A submissive dog will lie on his back, exposing his genitals to the dominant dog and thereby defining their relationship. That’s how, I know from experience, you can make friends with any dog, no matter how shy or aggressive the dog appears. Just lie on your back exposing your genitals. The dog will approach and sniff you. You will discover you have a new friend. What we call poor posture can, depending on the context, indicate either high or low status. The individual who slouches in his chair indicates a lack of interest, boredom. That could indicate a relatively high status individual bored with or lacking interest in the words of his subordinate as well as an individual who wants to recede from the eye of superiors, indicating a lack of confidence. Generally, walking upright and striding with purpose implies confidence and relative high status whereas walking slouched and haltingly implies lack of confidence and relatively low status. Unlike any other tetrapod, we have hands and arms free from the chores of locomotion, whether it be walking, swinging in trees, hanging from branches, crawling through burrows, flying, or swimming. We have evolved many useful purposes for our hands and arms, including establishing status. Imagine you have an interview and the boss sits behind a desk while you stand in front of him. Stretching his arms over his head establishes his relative high status. He bares his organs, having no fear that you will attack. He raises her arm and points his index finger at you, with the message that he has something very important to say and that you must be attentive. On the other hand, you have relatively low status. You may cross your arms to shield your organs from attack. You may pick at your fingernails, to the extent of biting them. Imagine what would happen if you attempt to achieve the relatively high status possessed by the boss. Try pointing your finger at the boss as you speak. “Now, sir, I can tell you something. This company stinks and I wouldn’t work for you if this was the last job on Earth!” That’s effectively the position you are attempting to obtain by, foolishly, pointing your index finger at the boss. Because of its importance, resulting from evolution, using arms and hands are noteworthy elements of interactive status. Eye contact powerfully communicates status. The relatively high status individual will stare at the relatively low status individual with a steady gaze. The low status individual will avert eye contact, looking from side to side and downwards. One mathematician joke provides the test to determine which of two mathematicians is the extrovert and which is the introvert when engaged in conversation, the stereotype being that all mathematicians are uncomfortable in social situations. “How do you tell if a mathematician is an introvert or an extrovert? If he looks at his shoes when he talks to you, he’s an introvert. If he looks at your shoes, he’s an extrovert.” It’s easy to imagine the situation where you convey lower status. You are in the army barracks. The sergeant congratulates your bunk mate for neatly folding his sheets in the morning. Your sheets are a mess. You stare at your bunk mate so you can avoid the eyes of the sergeant, knowing he is about to convert you into a mass of rapidly oscillating jello. In this case, you are lower status than your bunk mate. Now, in addition to the need to appear natural, the portions of the speech at which eye contact would be made depend on your relative status. If you are relatively low status and fear that the listener may at any time become uninterested, walk away, or wave to a friend passing by, then you would retain almost total eye contact. If you are relatively high status, then perhaps the only eye contact would be at the end, to communicate the message that your speech is now completed. Staring at someone signals confrontation. To be confrontational, you must have confidence. The lack of eye contact, either by looking to the side or looking downwards, signifies lack of confidence or being a liar. It is well documented that, if someone is being rude to you, you can stop that rudeness by looking at that individual straight in the eye. The individual who is rude possesses the relatively high status. He does not fear retribution, either verbal or physical. Staring an individual straight in the eye is a high status act. You staring the rude individual in the eye, then, effectively acts as a warning, that you are the relatively high status individual and that retribution may follow. If the speaker, for example, is making outrageous statements, then one of the listeners may look at another listener for a sign that he agrees that the statements are outrageous. This can be communicated by a rolling of the eyes, a shift of the eyes upwards, furrowing of the eyebrows, or a slight grin. That would demonstrate you possess higher status than the speaker. If, on the other hand, the speaker is discussing hyperbolic phase transitions in multi-pole relativistic electrodynamics and you have no idea what he’s talking about, unlike me, then you could shrug your shoulders while looking at a third person, indicating you have lower status, on the educational level, than the speaker. The manner in which one utilizes eye contact establishes status. Let’s discuss the habits of listeners and speakers. The individual who is listening stares at the speaker, his eyes or his mouth. If three or more individuals are engaged in a conversation, sometimes one of the listeners will look, not at the speaker, but at the other listeners to see what effect the speech is having on them. Here are two examples from my life in which listeners don’t look at the person speaking. My neighbors were a Greek woman, her non-Greek husband Bob, and her Greek mother. I always look forward to Greek Easter because they give me lots of food, my practicing the actors’ mantra, “eat when you can.” One year the mother, Beth, was explaining why Greeks color their eggs red on Easter, that the red color signifies the blood shed by their savior. She was very proud of her heritage, but, to me, and Bob, it seemed a bit far-fetched. Bob knew I’m a smart-aleck and, as Beth was explaining, he wasn’t staring at Beth, but at me, waiting for a reaction. After Beth finished, I paused and exclaimed, with, I may note, superlative comic timing, “That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.” Of course, they knew I was just kidding, and Bob had a hearty, hearty laugh. The point isn’t that I hate Greeks because one stole an old girl friend of mine, and then dumped her like a piece of soggy baklava when she wouldn’t produce, but that Bob did what people do, looking at the listener rather than the speaker. This interaction implied that I had higher status than Beth. When I was in the premiere of the play Women Who Love Science Too Much, one of my favorite actors of all time, who I deeply respect and try to emulate but whose name at the moment I forget, would slobber comically, if there is such a thing, during one particular speech by another actor. Instead of looking at the speaker, I would stare at the guy slobbering. The audience did, too. My character was concerned about why this guy was slobbering, as a normal individual would be, I assume. This again indicated I had higher status than what’s his name. In contrast to listening, whether or not a speaker stares at the person to whom he is speaking depends on their relative status. The relatively low status speaker will stare at the listener to make sure he’s not drifting away, but remains attentive. The relatively high status speaker rarely stares at the individual to whom he is speaking. He will glance at him to emphasize a point, to make sure he is listening, or at the end of his speech as a signal that he now awaits the listener’s response. After all, he’s the one in control.
CHAPTER TWENTY
The Connection Between Personal Status
and Interactive Status
The Connection Between Personal and Interactive Status
We can now recognize our basic thesis on status and interaction. As individuals change the intrinsic attribute with which they are relating, their relative status changes. If I’m being examined by my doctor, for example, he has the higher status. If I then pull out a copy of this book and tell him that it has reached #5 on the New York Times Review of Books best-seller list, I have the higher status. Now, these status changes are manifested in the elements of interactive status. When he examines me, he’s in total control. I may be sweating, or blabbering nervously, or about to faint. When I pull out the New York Times and show him my #5 ranking, he may now avert my glance as I raise my shoulders in pride. Let me then rephrase the basic thesis: As two individuals relate based on different intrinsic attributes, the changes in status are manifested by the manner in which they exhibit elements of interactive status, manner and quality of speech, eye contact, and body language. That’s the connection between personal and interactive status.
Types of Interactive Status Changes
We can identify various types of interaction. I initially suggest three, fighting, seduction, and negotiation. Of course, these terms are not to be taken specifically, but generally. By “fighting” is not meant only fisticuffs, but any severe adversarial relationship. “Seduction” does not only mean a sexual encounter, but also convincing someone to alter their position, as seducing someone to buy a new car. “Negotiation” does not refer only to a business dealing but, for example, who is going to take out the garbage. These three types of interactions can be considered to simply describe three types of interactive status changes. In fighting, the status changes are frequent and of both small and large magnitude. Both parties gain and lose status. An ultimate victor emerges with the higher status. In seduction, on the other hand, the status changes are subtle and the party that eventually ends up with the higher status gains a sequence of small increases in status. The final increase in status can be large, leading to the actual seduction. The interaction between a car salesman and a buyer can be described as a fighting interaction. As we’ve discussed earlier, each status change results from switching between relevant intrinsic attributes. The salesman has the relative high status in the intrinsic attributes of expertise, economic sense, expertise again, compassion, maturity, and dating skill. The buyer has relative high status in the intrinsic attribute of wealth, having come to buy a new car, but relative low status in those of emotional stability, evolving from reluctance to capitulation. In negotiation, the status changes are similar to that in fighting. The status changes are frequent and both parties gain and lose status, as in fighting, but, unlike in fighting, the status changes are only of small magnitude. Again unlike in fighting, where an ultimate winner appears, in negotiation the ultimate resolution leaves both parties of equal status. They agree to be partners in the final contract. These three interactions can be instructively interpreted as resulting from status changes. Because of the limitations of the English language, many others having suggested other designations, I use those three as examples rather than an exhaustive classification. For the sake of pedagogy, however, my analysis of some of the dialogues that follow will challenge you to suggest which of these types are represented, as well as other types such as a humiliation scene. In these types of interactions, it is clear that as one party increases in status, the other decreases in status. We can provide such changes through the scene graphically, or simply refer to them as the see-saw principle.
A Quantitative View of Interactive Status Changes
To be quantitative, let’s draw a graph of each party’s relative personal status as a function of time for these three types of interactions to display the status changes. The status of each party increases or decreases in small increments or large increments, and the final status would either be positive or negative or, in the case of negotiation, zero. In keeping with the concept of the see-saw principle, the increase (or decrease) in the status of party #1 is matched by a decrease (or increase) in the status of party #2. Accordingly, we can represent each type of interaction by a pair of graphs. Examining these graphs shows that the interactions between individuals is more complex than the simple see-saw principle suggests. Each change in the graph refers to a personal status change in a given intrinsic attribute. A sequence of changes could refer to the same intrinsic attribute, or the individuals could switch between interacting on different intrinsic attributes. The change is manifested by an element of interactive status, to repeat, the manner and or quality of speech, eye contact, or body language. In this way, Figure 1 shows the changes in the fighting interaction, in which numerous relative personal status changes of varying magnitude occur. Figure 2 shows the same in an example of a seduction interaction, in which the relative personal status changes are generally monotonic. Figure 3 shows the same in an example of a negotiation interaction, in which the relative personal status changes are frequent, but of small magnitude. The final relationship is neutral. Note that these illustrations make it clear that we could categorize interaction not by words but by such quantitative measures. We categorize interactions by, say, four characteristics, F, the frequency of the status changes (frequent or infrequent), M, the magnitude of the status changes (small, large, or a mixture), V, whether the variation in the status changes are roughly monotonic (seduction interactions) or oscillate (fighting and negotiation interactions), and by F, the final state, whether one party at the end of the scene has a higher or lower status or whether the two (fighting and negotiation interactions) or end up equal in status (negotiation interactions). We thereby see the inadequacy of language to describe interactions. With only three possible values for each of the four characteristics, we have 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = 81 interaction types, which is clearly a lower limit, and I challenge anyone to come up with terms describing each. This quantitative approach, though satisfying as being almost exhaustive of all possible types, would be, well, exhausting. Furthermore, we don’t deal in type F1, M2, V2, F3 relationships, but
Figure 1. In the fighting type of interaction, numerous status changes of varying magnitude occur. The status changes are frequent and randomly alternate until a final resolution.
Figure 2. In the seduction interaction, the status changes are generally monotonic.
Figure 3. In the negotiation interaction, the status changes are frequent, but of small magnitude. The final relationship is neutral.
Figure 4. In the humiliation interaction, the status changes are uniformly monotonic until the final severe reversal. fights, seductions, and negotiations, and other types of relationships to which we apply familiar terms. This again tells us why human beings, with our very limited intellect, find the study of psychology so challenging and, to my mind, so arbitrary. It’s also why jobs will always be available to psychologists. They, to my mind, never solve anything, leaving all those psychoses and neuroses to be resolved as best they can.
For one example, let’s graph an interaction in which the relative personal status changes are infrequent, small, and monotonic and which ends up with a major status reversal. We’ve all been in such situations. They are called humiliations. Figure 4 shows the personal status changes in an example of the humiliation type of interaction, in which the relative personal status changes are uniformly monotonic until the final severe reversal. It could describe an interaction in which a high school teacher walks out from behind his lectern and the class discovers his fly is open and bursts out laughing, or a woman student asking questions of her professor during his office hours slaps him when he puts his hand on her knee, or when a cop interrogating a suspect is himself suddenly arrested for shaking down drug dealers. Of course, all of these are in the realm of fiction, except for the first interaction which actually happened in my high school. Errr, I’m sorry to admit that the following also happened, an unfortunate, sad example from my life. I was the emcee at the Pacific Coast Collegiate Jazz Festival. Having emceed at festivals in the past, I had a good reputation. Then I introduced the great jazz pianist Bill Evans and said, “Here he is.” I, unfortunately, was not aware that the house lights would have to flash to announce that he was ready to walk on stage with his group. Maybe I just choked or was still too inexperienced. I was then told Mr. Evans was, in fact, in the commode. The resulting chagrin that I felt led me to abandon my date in shame. I did survive this fall in status, but I’ve never forgotten the shame I felt, the lowering in status with respect to my musician peers, not to mention my former thesis advisor, who was in attendance. That’s why I describe it here, a catharsis if you will. Hey, maybe I just forgot that the house lights flash after the artist tells the stage manager he’s ready to go on!! So sue me. Such categorizations enables us to classify a given motivation in terms of its interaction type. This, to me, as a scientist, has great value. The canonical scientific method begins with observation, followed by classification, statement of a hypothesis, development of experiments to test the hypothesis, and modification of the hypothesis if needed. Development of the Periodic Table of the Elements provides an excellent example. Elucidation of the physics behind the motions of the planets provides another. This scientific method construct has provided our species with the best method developed to date, given our limited intellect, to determine truth. It serves a great purpose, pedagogically as well as philosophically, to insert the classification aspect of the scientific method into our study of status and interaction. An interaction can be classified by the frequency, magnitude, quality of being monotonic or oscillating, and final state of the status changes.