It's important to remember that EVERY group uses status signaling.
Those hoodies you wear? You are signaling which tribe you belong to and your status within it. (In particular, this one is called "aposematic signaling", or I-can-get-away-with-it signaling.)
You think you're beyond status by intellectualizing over status signaling? No, instead you're just signaling (via intellectual status) to ingratiate yourself within a tribe that values intellectualism.
I have a fairly intellectual group of friends, and it was a sobering realization for us when we all noticed that - at least in part - the degree to which we share our intellectual curiosities may simply reflect a way to stay "in-group." Should we fail to intellectualize, then we might no longer "fit in" and belong to a tribe.
People signal in different ways - some by bragging, others by refusing to brag, some by buying, some by refusing to buy - but in the end, it's mostly about pledging allegiance to one tribe and rejecting the other in opposition. It's really no different from politics.
Everyone belongs to a tribe, and every tribe has a status hierarchy.
I’ve noticed that how formally you “have” to dress as a woman in corporate IT is an inverse parabola.
Receptionists? Often have strict dress codes demanding skirts and pantyhose.
Actual executives? Pantsuits and high end handbags with matching shoes.
Team assistants (aka, senior secretaries): moderately-priced business casual
Managers? Somewhat more expensive business casual
Developers and engineers like myself who will always be “individual contributors”? Jeans, hiking boots and t-shirts, with accessories and non-hiking ankle boots when feeling fancy.
And that latter definitely carries the status of, “I don’t think I’m judged by my appearance.”
That’s only really true for homogeneous groups. When culturally diverse people get together they rarely agree on what the status symbols are. Think old vs new money at a party. For any given metric say highest status, smartest, strongest, or most attractive person it’s hard to define an absolutely objective criteria.
Precisely! But I would argue that homogeneity (in beliefs, culture, SES) is what defines the tribe.
A heterogenous, divided group would not be a cohesive tribe, and therefore would not have a unifying status hierarchy. Old money and new money are separate tribes, and each status signals to ingroup members in profoundly different ways.
Those hoodies you wear? You are signaling which tribe you belong to and your status within it. (In particular, this one is called "aposematic signaling", or I-can-get-away-with-it signaling.)
You think you're beyond status by intellectualizing over status signaling? No, instead you're just signaling (via intellectual status) to ingratiate yourself within a tribe that values intellectualism.
I have a fairly intellectual group of friends, and it was a sobering realization for us when we all noticed that - at least in part - the degree to which we share our intellectual curiosities may simply reflect a way to stay "in-group." Should we fail to intellectualize, then we might no longer "fit in" and belong to a tribe.
People signal in different ways - some by bragging, others by refusing to brag, some by buying, some by refusing to buy - but in the end, it's mostly about pledging allegiance to one tribe and rejecting the other in opposition. It's really no different from politics.
Everyone belongs to a tribe, and every tribe has a status hierarchy.