January 2025
I've noticed a pattern in a personality type I didn’t expect to still encounter in adulthood:
the status-seeker.
For context, I put a lot of effort into being agreeable.
As someone that prioritizes community over freedom, I've read countless books on rhetoric, manners, and in general improved social skills a lot with this goal in mind.
By conventional markers, I'd say I'm at least functional -- friends I genuinely enjoy, clerks and flight attendants make unprompted exceptions, won a high school royalty vote once (for what it’s worth two decades later — not claiming social expertise, just disclaiming cluelessness).
Here's how a typical scenario might play out -- the status-seeker says they're interested in or wants to discuss a subject.
Being someone with many interests, I'll ask curiosity-based questions.
All goes well until a question is asked that either:
- they don't know the answer to
- pokes a hole in their world view
All of a sudden, a vibe shifts. It may take several moments like these, over several meetings, but the goal in conversation suddenly shifts to "get" me in conversation.
Answers suddenly laced with matter-of-fact tone and attitude, retorts a bit snarky.
Assuming I've offended somehow, I'll back off at first sign. But here is where the situation worsens.
Purely out of a desire for accuracy than conversational defense, I'm somewhat careful about phrasing.
So conversational attacks on things I’ve said often fail due to already having conceded my ignorance with modifiers like "excluding X scenario" or "acknowledging my limited experience in Y". [0]
The failed dunks only enhance the enmity.
Now attacks are coming, only ever in public, that rely on rhetorical tricks since argument-based ones fail. Straw mans, skipping over crucial words, mis-quoting, etc -- all with the goal of "getting me" in front of others.
The immediate thought is that the questions were taken antagonistically, and now they're merely returning fire, assuming competition [1].
But further analysis and experiences suggest this is actually not the full picture.
Reason 1: I'm not Richard Hendricks
While I can be tone-deaf, I'm not unaware of social cues -- when this happens I immediately soften and avoid probing further.
I'm not one-upping or correcting [2], very aware of those annoying habits -- it's often simply a question of curiosity, conversation-making intentionally[3] delivered with a friendly tone, or even responding to a question I've been reluctantly dragged into answering.
Reason 2: Their targets are always people with perceived "status"
This is more for others besides myself who I see targeted. Anyone seen as equal-or-above in the particular domain this person's status is tied to, becomes a target for this behavior.
I'll be the first to tell you I have zero status. I've built some cool things and notched small wins, but in a field where teenagers build billion-dollar companies, no one is more aware of his irrelevance than this 32yo Silicon Valley unc.
But perceived status is what matters with status-seekers.
If someone is the big fish in their little pond, even accidentally poking a world-view hole via question is enough to trigger what I call the Never Back Down syndrome:
"If you wanna be the best, you gotta take out the best"
Reason 3: Social Proof
The kicker is this: others independently noticing the same behavior.
Not mere friends confirming my opinion, but total strangers calling out the behaviors, or taking more drastic action that parallels my own.
With others confirming, it seems increasingly likely this isn't just fundamental attribution bias and actually a tangible anomaly.
But why does it happen?
The Pattern
A pattern emerges in the professional lives of such people:
- unsuccessful businesses
- vocal anti-career sentiment
- people whose jobs lack results-based progression (large corps or government)
- the unemployed (stay-at-home partners w/o kids or truly occupying pursuits, retirees)
Almost all are either unsuccessful at a career game they're playing, refuse to play it to begin with, or have none to play!
It’s all reminiscent of Paul Graham's "Why nerds are unpopular", where he discusses status games in school resembling those of high-society wives. When there is no positive-sum or objective task to be good at, groups resort to zero-sum status games -- aka the high school pecking order.
Indeed, many of these status-seeking traits become noticeably worse in all of us when someone loses their positive-sum game, whether through quitting, layoffs, retirement, or other circumstance.
Other patterns that emerge:
- frequent blaming of some group or system (e.g. DEI, capitalism)
- following the tribalism pattern beaten to death here
- general insecurity
My takeaway from this is that people need to:
- play a game no matter what
- experience wins and progression, or they'll switch games
In other words: if you're not playing wealth games, you're playing status-games.
And despite the virtue signaling of rejecting capitalism, zero-sum games tend to be a lot less wholesome than positive-sum games. [4]
The other question is, what can one do when faced with this situation?
I think I've found the answer: limit contact.
I understand this is not always possible with family and friends, but if a person cannot exist with you without playing a game where one of you has to be on the bottom, then contact with that person should be minimized, if not removed altogether.
I've only had to do this twice in my life, but the energy restored was so much I reflect positively on those decisions even years later.
And removing people is only half the solution, the other is that you must add awesome, non-status-seeking people to your circle. We have such people in our lives and the energy they add makes life worth living.
Contrary to the parables of Scrooge we’re taught young, finding people playing wealth games is a great hack. When someone is giving their all to a pursuit, they're less likely to have time/energy to partake in petty status competitions. [5]
*Note: there is a rare type of person that does not play wealth games, yet also doesn't play status games. They can just be. I've only met a few people like this, and married one of them.
Footnotes
[0] - ironically, people who try most to "get" me conversationally have a near 100% fail rate, while those who actually could, rarely do it. Probably because truly smart people:
a) don't feel the need to prove their smartness b) don't see discussion as an ego-battle c) have other occupations to put energy into, as I cover later
But also, I suspect, b/c status-seekers either intentionally surround themselves with people on whom such basic attacks work, or develop the behavior in the first place b/c it works in their circles for some cheap dopamine hits.
[1] - which is never the case, as outside of business I'm very much not a competitive person
[2] - unless blatantly/rudely attacked
[3] - I don't always succeed with the tone, especially if excited or deep in thought (or very clearly being snarked at), but having been a target for bullying most of my life I try very hard to avoid verbal contests. Simply because I hate the conflict even if proven right, and just generally prefer applying knowledge to discussing it.
[4] - note: while wealth games implies money, it can be any kind of wealth, like taking care of kids or family, chasing true scientific discoveries (not academia status-seeking), a hobby, etc.
[5] - this doesn’t mean ambitious people are free of such games, just less-likely to focus their energy on them