PDF Summary:The Status Game, by Will Storr

You might think of yourself as the hero of a story or a traveler on a journey. But what if it’s more accurate to say that you’re just a player in a game? In The Status Game, journalist Will Storr argues that we experience our social lives as a game, where the goal is to win as much status as we can to fit in with—but also stand out from—the people around us. Storr explains that by learning how these games work, you can better understand why you do what you do and avoid getting caught up in the more toxic aspects of the game.

In this guide, we’ll explore Storr’s theory about how status games shape your interactions with other people. We’ll also examine what happens when status games go wrong, and we’ll compare Storr’s ideas to those of other thinkers who’ve studied our drive for status and its sometimes surprising effects.

(continued)...

Games can also change us as we play them, as when we join a social network and engage with it compulsively to see what rewards get paid out when we post something. When we gain status, we want more. Storr writes that this might be because status isn’t a stable achievement that, once won, is ours permanently: It’s conferred on us by other people who can always take it away. We continually seek more status and believe that having more status will make us happy.

How Social Media Affects Your Behavior (and Your Brain)

Spending time on social media—a popular kind of status game—not only changes our behavior but also seems to exert a powerful effect on our brains. Experts say that as we come to believe that our worth depends on the number of followers we have and the likes we get, spending more time on social networks makes us feel inferior and hurts our self-esteem.

Some experts think that we’re vulnerable to these effects because of our fundamental desires to belong and to gain social status. Because of these basic psychological needs, our brains treat information about ourselves—like the feedback we receive about our reputations and status each time we check into a social media app—like a reward. When the brain perceives a reward, pathways through the brain that process rewards become activated, and that activation leads us to seek more rewards.

For instance, before you check Facebook or Instagram, you might not know whether someone else has left you a like, a comment, or a direct message. So you keep opening the app (or refreshing your feed) to see what reward you might receive. Researchers explain that this reward-based feedback loop can lead to social media’s negative psychological effects. These harmful effects can include feeling preoccupied with the social network, learning to use it to improve your mood, needing to spend more time on it to get the same psychological effect, or experiencing withdrawal-like symptoms when you stop using it.

We Learn From Others to Play Status Games

A third reason that we play status games is simply that we learn them from others. Storr writes that beginning with our first status game as adolescents, we engage in a process of social learning to join a group and get the hang of its rules and symbols. Each time we join a group, we follow the same process to learn the game. Because the rules aren’t explicit, we learn to play by watching high-status people and mimicking them. We buy into the game, accepting the validity of its values, rules, and symbols.

(Shortform note: Storr’s theory about how we learn to play status games matches what other experts have observed of how we behave when we join a new social group. In The Laws of Human Nature, Robert Greene writes that when we join a group, we learn to match the ideas and values it promotes, in a process similar to what Storr describes. Greene writes that in addition to adopting the group’s ideas, we also work to fit in in more visible ways, such as by changing our physical appearance. According to Greene, we also learn to perform our belonging with the group—but the more time we spend with the group, the more real the performance becomes.)

Storr writes that just as we learn to play games by watching other people, we also learn to calculate our status by comparing ourselves with others. We feel jealous of other people’s success, particularly when we observe that there’s extensive inequality between the top of the hierarchy and the bottom. That occurs in part because we want not just to receive a reward, but to receive a reward that’s bigger or better than what others have. (Shortform note: Researchers have found that we care more about getting a reward when other people don’t. That means that we compare what we have to what others have to understand rewards like social status.)

(Shortform note: Psychologists have a name for the idea that we understand our social status by comparing ourselves to others: social comparison theory. We make social comparisons when we look to other people to determine how our behavior, our beliefs, or our status measure up. Psychologists think that social comparison is normal and can sometimes exert a positive effect by motivating us. But it can also have negative consequences. In fact, some experts think that a healthier way to build our self-esteem is to cultivate gratitude for what we’ve already achieved—though substituting gratitude for social comparison can be difficult in the moment.)

In the process of learning how to play a particular game, the game changes us. That can be a good thing, if we gain social connections and gain status by exercising skill or creating knowledge. But it can also hurt us and those around us if we fall prey to some of the more insidious effects of status games, which we’ll explore next.

What Happens When Status Games Go Wrong?

Storr writes that a status game is successful when it generates status for its members and for the group as a whole. Though we have plenty of reasons to play status games and we derive benefit from these games, they have a dark side. In this section of the guide, we’ll look at the ways that status games can go wrong and the consequences that follow.

Status Games Induce Feelings of Grandiosity—and Humiliation

One way that a status game can go wrong is by producing a dangerous mix of emotions in its players. Storr explains that a natural consequence of status games is that the competition induces a sense of grandiosity, or exaggerated self-regard, in the game’s players. However, if the game fails to reward us in the way we expected, or we gain status and then lose it, our sense of grandiosity turns into humiliation, or a loss of pride or self-respect.

(Shortform note: Grandiosity and humiliation sometimes come up in the context of narcissism, a trait experts describe as an intense desire for appreciation or admiration. There are two kinds of narcissists: grandiose narcissists, who are dominant and overconfident, and vulnerable narcissists, who are introverted and resentful. Both have high opinions of themselves and think they deserve special treatment. So when their identity, or status, is threatened, they respond with “humiliated fury”: a mix of shame and depression they try to hide with rage. Most of us don’t display that level of narcissism, but experts say that nearly everyone shows narcissistic traits occasionally, which might explain some of the emotions we feel when playing status games.)

On an individual level, humiliation can result in poor mental health outcomes like depression, anxiety, and even suicidal ideation. When the humiliation is damaging enough, it can prompt us to react with rage and violence. The consequences can be dangerous: Storr writes that in extreme cases, a history of repeated humiliation is linked to violent crimes. For example, as a student at Harvard, Ted Kaczynski joined a psychological experiment where every week for three years an experimenter verbally abused and humiliated him. Kaczynski later carried out terror attacks with homemade bombs and became known as the “Unabomber.”

(Shortform note: Some people have suggested that Kaczynski’s behavior might be explained by narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), a condition in which a pattern of grandiosity, a need for admiration, a lack of empathy, and shame play a prominent role. People with NPD are so sensitive to others’ negative reactions that they feel shame and humiliation in response, and they either withdraw or lash out aggressively. The experiment that Kaczynski participated in sought to subject participants to “psychic deconstruction” through humiliation. It’s possible that this experience might have been particularly destructive in Kaczynski’s case, given that narcissists are thought to experience humiliation as undermining their sense of self.)

Storr writes that sometimes, it’s not just an individual but a group of people who lose status or don’t receive the status they feel that they’ve earned. When this happens, they may band together to overthrow the people at the top of the hierarchy.

(Shortform note: Is a loss of status enough to start a revolution? Some experts think it’s a crucial factor. In How Civil Wars Start, political scientist Barbara F. Walter identifies three catalysts that seem to predict which nations experience civil war: a transition toward or away from democracy; a “factionalist” system of political parties based on ethnicity, race, or religion; and a dominant group’s loss of status. Walter argues that this “downgrading” of status predicts which groups are likely to initiate conflict, especially if they have high status and experience a status reversal.)

Status Games Can Make People Believe Almost Anything

A second consequence of our drive to gain status is that a game can make us believe almost anything, even something irrational. In games where people earn status by believing in an idea, then the belief itself becomes a status symbol. The people who have adopted the idea come to view it as a core part of their identity. An example is the theory that childhood vaccinations cause autism: Storr describes how, when well-intentioned parents believe misinformation about vaccines and reject immunizations for their children, some become so invested in groups that spread anti-vaccination messages that these groups become core to their identity.

(Shortform note: Experts explain that group identity can profoundly shape our beliefs and make us dismiss any challenges to them. Researchers have found that the more strongly a person identifies with an anti-vaccine group, the harder it is to get them to change their mind about vaccines. If a person’s vaccine hesitancy gives them positive self-esteem and personal meaning, then their membership in the group becomes part of their identity. For example, people who describe themselves as “anti-vaxxers” are more likely to identify as a group than people who describe themselves as “vaccine-hesitant,” and this group identity has a powerful ability to shape their beliefs and actions.)

Storr explains that when a game becomes too conformist, it becomes something like a cult, a group that requires people to show complete obedience with their behaviors and their beliefs. In games that require conformity, players gain status by proving their dedication to the group’s belief. As people see others attaining status within the group, they join and adopt the belief, which becomes part of their identity. In this way, even extreme ideas grow in popularity.

(Shortform note: How can you tell when a group is operating like a cult? Experts say that cults are defined by their dedication to an ideology (usually an extreme belief), and they’re often headed by charismatic leaders. But cults can be difficult to tell apart from other belief-based organizations, whether those organizations have formed around a religious belief or a belief in a political ideology or a corporate mission. We tend to think that joining a cult requires people to be particularly credulous, or to believe an outlandish claim that we’d never fall for. But experts note that we all believe things for which we have little evidence, and we can all adopt illogical beliefs, especially when we’re in a group of people who have also gotten on board with an idea.)

Status Games Produce Hostility and Enmity

A third way that status games go wrong is when the natural rivalry between groups becomes too extreme and prejudices us against members of a rival group. We naturally find it uncomfortable to encounter someone whose beliefs contradict ours. But this becomes dangerous when we decide that people who believe differently than we do aren’t just wrong, but morally wrong and therefore evil.

(Shortform note: Aligning ourselves closely with fellow group members and passing unfavorable judgments on rival groups may be a natural, if destructive, behavior. In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt reports that we’ve evolved to cooperate with members of our own group to prevail over rival groups. Haidt writes that we experience a sense of tribalism because we naturally feel a kinship with and loyalty to people who are similar to us. This feeling produces a sense of self-righteousness, and it also helps explain why different groups of people can have diverging ideas of what’s right and wrong and what behavior is morally correct.)

When hostility between groups occurs, we often cease to see members of other groups as unique individuals. Storr explains that instead, we see them as a homogenous group, one that threatens our values and beliefs just by existing and by following different rules than we do. We may even feel justified in attacking others whose beliefs are different from others. This hostility between groups unites people within each group, reinforcing the narrative that group members are heroes fighting for a noble cause and that people outside the group are villains.

(Shortform note: Psychologists have a name for our tendency to view people outside of our group as all the same: the “outgroup homogeneity effect.” When thinking about characteristics like people’s values or personality traits, we tend to judge people from an outgroup (a group to which we don’t belong) as more homogeneous than people from our ingroup (a group to which we do belong). Consequently, we see outgroup members as all the same, rather than as unique individuals. This also makes us more likely to see people from the outgroup in a stereotyped way, which contributes to the hero-villain dynamic Storr describes.)

Status Games Incentivize Conformity and Prime People to Engage in Tyranny

A fourth danger occurs when the game becomes tyranny: when it becomes oppressive in its control, coercing people to follow its rules and refusing to tolerate those who don’t comply. Storr characterizes tyranny as one of the greatest dangers of status games because it distorts our perception of reality. This particular form of tyranny isn’t one enacted by a single leader: Instead, it’s a “tyranny of cousins,” where the members of the group enforce conformity, sometimes brutally. He says we all have the capacity for tyranny (like when we “cancel” people online for acting in a way that contradicts our beliefs). But by incentivizing us to participate in its cruelty, a tyrannical game clouds our judgment and can lead us to make unethical decisions.

(Shortform note: In The Origins of Political Order, political scientist Francis Fukuyama explains that the phrase “tyranny of cousins” describes how rules were enforced, sometimes violently, when people lived in small bands and their social worlds were limited to kin groups, where the moral rules focused on punishing people who didn’t share with the group. Max Fisher writes in The Chaos Machine that in these consensus-based societies, we learned to respond with moral outrage to someone violating a social norm. But this outrage can spin out of control.)

However, Storr warns, conforming with the group doesn’t always keep us safe. When a game gets more strict and more focused on its rules, even ingroup members come under suspicion. Some people become more strict as the game does. Others lose their faith in the game, but enforce its rules to perform a loyalty that they no longer feel. As people’s doubts about the group grow, they become suspicious of others. The game can then turn into a “witch hunt,” where members hunt down players who are insufficiently loyal to the game.

(Shortform note: Storr’s warning that a game that becomes too strict can devolve into a witch hunt is consistent with research that suggests that witch hunts persecute society’s most marginalized members when they step outside of the roles prescribed for them by strictly enforced rules. Some experts believe that one condition that’s remarkably consistent between historical witch hunts is “a backdrop of social and economic dislocation,” which can lead to stricter rules and growing suspicion. For example, in 16th- and 17th-century Europe, subsistence economies were being replaced by capitalist systems and close-knit communities were breaking down. The resulting conflicts created the conditions for the original witch hunts.)

Status Games Make Evil Seem Virtuous

A fifth way in which status games go wrong happens when a game metes out brutal consequences for a rival group that it considers its enemy. When a group playing a virtue-dominance game feels it’s under threat by another group, it feels justified in demonizing its enemies and destroying lives to protect its status. Because the group maintains a steadfast belief in its own morality, its members become so invested in the narrative of their own heroism that they experience what Storr calls “toxic morality.” These groups are then primed to commit acts of violence, such as colonialism and genocide, and to perceive these acts as virtuous.

For example, Storr writes, after the First World War, Germany lost its status as one of Europe’s great powers. Many Germans accepted the narrative that Jews were responsible for Germany’s loss and humiliation, but they focused less on Adolf Hitler’s message of antisemitism and more on his promises that the Nazi party could restore Germany’s status. Once the majority of Germans became invested in the Nazi party by virtue of the rewards (the status) they gained by participating, then its rules and beliefs could become more extreme, leading to the Holocaust.

(Shortform note: What Storr refers to as “toxic morality” is similar to what psychologists call “moral exclusion,” which occurs when we view certain people as outside the boundaries where our moral rules apply. The more different from us a group of people seems, the more likely we are to be prejudiced or discriminate against them. People who are morally excluded come to seem expendable, even nonhuman. Moral exclusion had catastrophic consequences in Nazi Germany, where discrimination and abuse against Jewish people became commonplace before the genocide began. The strategy worked because the Nazi Party promised solutions to Germany’s problems, exploiting people’s fear and frustration to gain their support.)

Status Games Perpetuate Injustice

Finally, a sixth consequence of status games gone wrong is the inequality they create or perpetuate. Some people have a lot of status, some have very little, and everyone wants more than what they have. Storr explains that while we think that we want equality, status games all but guarantee that what we really want is to gain more status and a higher place in the hierarchy. Status games also create the problem of an elite class, which always exists even if the game’s structure undergoes monumental change, like when a political system changes.

(Shortform note: Other experts agree with Storr that the competition for status perpetuates inequality. Sociologist Cecilia Ridgeway writes that inequalities in status are just as crucial as inequalities in resources and power in creating patterns of social inequality—and in establishing an elite class. Political theorist Hugo Drochon explains that the word “elite” captures the idea that a minority always dominates over the majority, even as the game changes and one group of elites replaces the last. And economist Vilfredo Pareto, who gave the word “elite” its modern meaning, believed that understanding what the elite class values enables us to understand society as a whole, since people with the most status shape everyone else’s values, too.)

According to Storr, people have long been attracted to the idea of a system that does away with inequality by eradicating the idea of personal property and wealth: a society where everything is shared and people live and work together. The problem is that the human desire to be more and have more than our neighbors is deeper, and older, than our systems of private property and wealth. (This, he says, is why Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin’s Communist Party didn’t create an equal society without hierarchy, but instead produced new classes and privileges.) Storr notes that it’s impossible to eradicate our desire to have more status than our neighbors. It’s part of us, and we have to find productive rather than destructive ways to channel it.

(Shortform note: In arguing for a system that ends inequality in The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels write that the defining goal of communism is to abolish bourgeois private property. Goals like ending private land ownership aimed to distribute wealth more equally and eliminate social classes. But other thinkers—including philosopher Harry Frankfurt, author of On Inequality—have argued that people are OK with unequal outcomes as long as they feel fair. These same ideas of fairness—along with our innate desire to have more than our peers—drive us to try to “keep up with the Joneses.” But experts point out that our efforts to keep pace with our neighbors as a way to maintain our social status don’t make us happy.)

How Can We Play Status Games Without Getting Hurt?

Though it sounds wise to opt out of playing status games, given the above risks, it’s impossible to disengage from them completely. But Storr writes that it’s possible to protect ourselves from the dangers of status games. In this section of the guide, we’ll explore the principles that Storr recommends following in order to play status games without getting hurt.

Play Healthy Games—and Keep Your Priorities Straight

One way to avoid the dangers of status games is to play the right games. According to Storr, we need to play success games (games of skills or knowledge), not virtue games or dominance games. He also recommends picking games with small group sizes, since these may be less competitive and more collaborative. Healthy games may also have shallow social hierarchies, without much inequality. For example, you might feel happier joining a supportive local running group than competing in a high-profile marathon that thousands of people enter every year.

(Shortform note: One way to select the right games might be to make sure you’re looking at them with the right perspective. In First Things First, Stephen Covey recommends adopting an “everybody-wins” mindset, rather than the “win-lose” mindset that society (and many status games) teach us to have. This means that rather than thinking of success as a zero-sum game, you could look for ways to collaborate and achieve success with other people. To do this, Covey recommends approaching problems with a group perspective in mind, listening to other people before offering your opinion, and then coming up with potential solutions together.)

Storr explains that it’s also wise to play multiple games to avoid having too much of your identity and status wrapped up in a single game. He recommends constructing a hierarchy of the games you play so you know where to invest your time and effort. For example, you might determine that your career is one of the most important games you play, but realize that being an active and valued member of a community—whether it’s your neighborhood association, a writers’ group, or your local LGBTQ community—is just as important to you.

(Shortform note: When you’re deciding which games to dedicate your time to, consider your priorities. In Designing Your Life, Bill Burnett and Dave Evans write that there are many paths you can pursue, but the one that will make you the happiest is the one where your priorities and your behavior are in alignment. They recommend finding ways to integrate your priorities for your work, and for other areas of your life, looking for a variety of activities that make you feel good and tracking what motivates you. Together, these strategies can help you figure out which pursuits—and which status games—make you feel engaged and happy.)

Storr also advises against indulging the natural tendency to hate people who play different games than you. For example, this might look like taking a step back from judging people who belong to the opposing political party as ignorant, wrong, or evil. You can also recognize that the moral principles you’ve accepted as part of the games you play are not universal. Even when you think that someone is doing something that’s morally wrong, Storr recommends cultivating empathy for them, trying to understand their perspective, and recognizing that they’re also playing a game and making tradeoffs to play it.

(Shortform note: It’s difficult to be open to the possibility that your moral intuitions could be wrong, or might not apply to everyone, as Storr recommends. But in Principles: Life and Work, Ray Dalio offers some advice that might help: He writes that if you think something is morally wrong, then you should first assume that your assessment is incorrect and figure out why what’s happening makes sense. To do this, you can practice radical open-mindedness, a process that involves looking for the best possible answer, acknowledging that you have biases, accepting that someone else might have the right answer, and trying to achieve both humility and self-knowledge about your thought processes.)

Focus on Making a Positive Impression

Next, when you’re looking to gain status, it can also help to pay attention to how you’re going about trying to get people to respect you. Storr recommends that rather than seizing status by force, you can make it more likely that other people will award you status by communicating in ways that make a positive impression, using the qualities of warmth, sincerity, and competence.

Other ways to make a positive impression involve demonstrating your respect for other people and their competence and agency (rather than indulging the tendency to compete with them or dominate them) and choosing to be a nonconformist. Being original can offer a healthier path to success than trying to be perfect. For example, you might start your own business rather than playing by the rules of an established corporation to gain status in your career.

(Shortform note: Other experts agree with Storr that focusing on how you communicate and how you treat other people can help you to gain status in a healthy way. To make a positive impression on people, and to gain influence naturally, you might focus on building strong relationships with your family, friends, and coworkers. In High Performance Habits, Brendon Burchard recommends generating influence in three ways: by asking for what you want or need in your relationships, being generous with the people around you, and elevating the people you interact with by showing them your appreciation and gratitude.)

Remind Yourself That You’re Playing a Game

Finally, Storr notes that you can avoid many of the dangers of status games by simply remembering that it’s all a game: You’re not really a hero in a story, but are actually a player in a game. Storr writes that by staying aware of the games you’re playing and the rules you’re playing by, you can remind yourself to make more rational choices about what stories you accept and how you want to live your life.

(Shortform note: Another framework for thinking about your life as a game—in a healthy way—comes from Simon Sinek’s The Infinite Game. Sinek is specifically writing about business, but there might be broader value in his key insight that it’s more productive to think of what you’re doing as an infinite game (one that’s constantly evolving and never-ending) versus a finite game (one with a clear finish line). To develop what Sinek calls an “infinite mindset,” you can focus on just playing the game rather than trying to win, think of the impact that your actions have on other people, focus on building resilience, and emphasize your long-term goals rather than short-term priorities.)