Can you define high and low status programmers / programmer culture? Because the most competent and productive engineer in my office is also the biggest sticker for the planning / pointing process.
Ultimately I think Scrum needs to be for the team, and the process should be defined by the team. If pointing stories isn't working then the team can stop doing it (we pay it lip service, but that's about it). But you do need some way to agree on what's to be done and who's going to do it.
The planning/pointing process can only benefit people with high status. Rules don't really impact high status employees.
If somebody with high status doesn't meet expectations we tend to think the problem is with the expectations; if they are low status we tend to think the problem is with the person.
In the same way the high status employee has a lot more say over the way story points are allocated and how the work is allocated.
I've been low-status before despite being just as good as everyone else in the team and I've also been high-status despite being one of the worst in the team.
When you are low status people focus on your mistakes. When you are high status people look at your successes and overall contribution.
Ultimately I think Scrum needs to be for the team, and the process should be defined by the team. If pointing stories isn't working then the team can stop doing it (we pay it lip service, but that's about it). But you do need some way to agree on what's to be done and who's going to do it.