Nice to see Henderson on here, I've been a subscriber. I've often thought that status is a function of what's yours to share. It's distinct from positional power that was conferred, because the necessary condition for organic status is to be the object of the desire of others. It's also separate from having shiny stuff, because if it's stolen or unstable, it's not yours to share. Famous musicians and actors have the highest status in the world becuse they can share their fame, but relatively very little direct power - and the most powerful people in the world do not represent what others want, but rather just have control of some diminishing resources.
The psychological definition he uses where power is "control of access to resources" is an ok model. Separating it from status and prestige is key, where he gives the example of olympic athletes vs. nightclub bouncers, where each have high or low status and high or low power respectively.
Conferring power on low status people is a recipe for disaster, where those people will find ways to apply the power to an infinite need for status - without regard for the human desire that confers its legitimacy. It's what makes a lot of the current crop of establishment aspirants so uncanny, they have seized the reins of institutions, but are themselves personally undesirable because they have nothing of their own to share - it's all over leveraged and competing to supplicate themselves. Arguably, the tension in the culture is that there are no good men or good women in institutional power today, and so much so that people in power are trying to erase what "good" even means because it is a source of humiliation for them. They will try arbitrarily to destroy people who have the organic status that their own power does not give them. Never underestimate the capacity of undesirable people for cruelty, it's what the cold war was fought over, imo.
Becoming higher status is a straightforward process of self improvement, where through exercise, education, practice and competence, you become more desirable to others, and the resources you have are ones that are yours to share. There is no mystery there.
The interesting question to me is, given power is rarely ever converted into desirable status, how is status converted into power? We used to call it "convening power," where royalty and celebrities could get people in a room together. If an invitation came from them, it would be accepted, and brokering that meeting (and taking some equity) was how to convert status into power. But if there were a way to convert it directly, I think there is a recipe for peace, where it would mean both a way to respect and participate in civilization instead of trying to rule over its ashes.
The psychological definition he uses where power is "control of access to resources" is an ok model. Separating it from status and prestige is key, where he gives the example of olympic athletes vs. nightclub bouncers, where each have high or low status and high or low power respectively.
Conferring power on low status people is a recipe for disaster, where those people will find ways to apply the power to an infinite need for status - without regard for the human desire that confers its legitimacy. It's what makes a lot of the current crop of establishment aspirants so uncanny, they have seized the reins of institutions, but are themselves personally undesirable because they have nothing of their own to share - it's all over leveraged and competing to supplicate themselves. Arguably, the tension in the culture is that there are no good men or good women in institutional power today, and so much so that people in power are trying to erase what "good" even means because it is a source of humiliation for them. They will try arbitrarily to destroy people who have the organic status that their own power does not give them. Never underestimate the capacity of undesirable people for cruelty, it's what the cold war was fought over, imo.
Becoming higher status is a straightforward process of self improvement, where through exercise, education, practice and competence, you become more desirable to others, and the resources you have are ones that are yours to share. There is no mystery there.
The interesting question to me is, given power is rarely ever converted into desirable status, how is status converted into power? We used to call it "convening power," where royalty and celebrities could get people in a room together. If an invitation came from them, it would be accepted, and brokering that meeting (and taking some equity) was how to convert status into power. But if there were a way to convert it directly, I think there is a recipe for peace, where it would mean both a way to respect and participate in civilization instead of trying to rule over its ashes.