I despise the notion of 'social status', why?

[Dada00007]

I despise the need to be 'of a high social status' to be interesting to other people. I despise the whole idea of people needing to be high statused to have more people being interested in them and in their work.

Its so stupid.

Why can't we get along without it?

I despise working and building a career just because with better deeds which will grant me a higher status I will be seen better. So stupid.

Why do we need anything as a 'social status'?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Peon.

Or, wait, it's "pleb" now. You fucking pleb.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I think it has to do with the deep deep psychological need to be socially validated.

Even prostitutes take some pride in what they do commensurate with the value they provide others.

Gives life a purpose, for most people its their primary purpose I think.

There are a few people who really don't care about social validation and the status that comes with it.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Social caste is a measure of many things, it's an indirect degree of your success in life, many people choose to interpret your status as your possible worth to them.

If you like it or not, there will be people who'll interpret and inform themselves on your standing and will treat you accordingly. In most cases I reserve my purest contempt for these higher breeds. But the best advice as always would be to play the game of deception and pretend to be on their side if you stand to lose.

It's especially annoying when one is already considered their level and they are willing to include one in their game to isolate everything around them.

Going a bit deeper, status is whatever you are able to do, whatever power you have and inevitably this is your worth to others, your external potential and judging thereof is inescapable, in a different light and to a different degree you'll be scrutinised by everyone.

Even the act of discerning facial features is the earliest moment another person decides about your attractiveness and relation.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Looks like someone has status anxiety.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's lazy dull thinking.

 

[The Gopher]

I despise the need to be 'of a high social status' to be interesting to other people. I despise the whole idea of people needing to be high statused to have more people being interested in them and in their work.

Its so stupid.

Why can't we get along without it?

I despise working and building a career just because with better deeds which will grant me a higher status I will be seen better. So stupid.

Why do we need anything as a 'social status'?

No you have it the wrong way around. You don't have a high social status and then become interesting. You become interesting, and then develop a high social status. You only ever have a high social status if you are interesting in the first place.

So yes, you do things better or you succeed or you are different and then people become interested in you. Social status is not this evil thing to achieve it's just the words used to describe when people find you interesting.

You can have a high social status in a group of drug lords. A group of Pizza delivery drivers, or a group of professionals. You can have a low social status among other people. There is a general level of high social status. (lawyer, doctor) Because those people aren't common and requires a lot to achieve and stuff.

So if you don't have a high social status in any group you are boring or uninteresting. Why would people waste time being bored? Now you may only be boring relative to other people (e.g this forum) so maybe if you ever do want social status you should hang out with people worse than you.

It's fine to be uninteresting just don't expect anyone to care about you. If people you care about don't care about you then relative to them you don't matter. Find different people who are more easily entertained. If your goal is to be interesting then continue to do interesting stuff.

Does it suck, sure I guess on an emotional level. Does it make complete logical sense? Yes.

If you have status anxiety the best way is to not care. *insert Gopher therapy joke $9.99 a session*

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

No you have it the wrong way around. You don't have a high social status and then become interesting. You become interesting, and then develop a high social status. You only ever have a high social status if you are interesting in the first place.

So yes, you do things better or you succeed or you are different and then people become interested in you. Social status is not this evil thing to achieve it's just the words used to describe when people find you interesting.

You can have a high social status in a group of drug lords. A group of Pizza delivery drivers, or a group of professionals. You can have a low social status among other people. There is a general level of high social status. (lawyer, doctor) Because those people aren't common and requires a lot to achieve and stuff.

So if you don't have a high social status in any group you are boring or uninteresting. Why would people waste time being bored? Now you may only be boring relative to other people (e.g this forum) so maybe if you ever do want social status you should hang out with people worse than you.

It's fine to be uninteresting just don't expect anyone to care about you. If people you care about don't care about you then relative to them you don't matter. Find different people who are more easily entertained. If your goal is to be interesting then continue to do interesting stuff.

Does it suck, sure I guess on an emotional level. Does it make complete logical sense? Yes.

If you have status anxiety the best way is to not care. *insert Gopher therapy joke $9.99 a session*

Sounds completely logical

 

[Yellow]

Do you mean "social status" like having more money? or "social status" like being the popular kid in high school?

The first requires money and composure. The second doesn't actually matter once you're an adult (unless you intend to go into a highly social field).

 

[Bock]

The second doesn't actually matter once you're an adult (unless you intend to go into a highly social field).

Ridiculous at best, social status is one of the most important factors when it comes to basic shit like fiding a mate or staying competetive in the workforce (you seem to believe that most people are highly gifted and equipped with highly sought-after talents).

 

[Yellow]

Ridiculous at best, social status is one of the most important factors when it comes to basic shit like fiding a mate or staying competetive in the workforce (you seem to believe that most people are highly gifted and equipped with highly sought-after talents).

Social status (the second definition) is trivial to mate selection outside very social situations. When you hit on a woman in a grocery store, or chat online, or talk at a bar, or wherever, she isn't going to be thinking "he seems great, and all, but is he popular?"

With job acquisition too, I've never had an interviewer ask me "where would you say you stand among your friends and associates, do they think you're really cool?" Same goes for promotions. If you have the qualifications, skill, and work ethic to do the job, no employer (outside a very social environment) is going to hesitate just because you avoid the office social circles.

It's true that social competence is required for all those things. Charisma is even better, but the "you need to be hanging with the cool crowd to be validated as a person" concept is not really a part of adult life.

 

[Cognisant]

In the adult world popularity is less important that leverage which itself is a combination of means and influence. People with a great deal of leverage may seem popular but really that popularity has less to do with who they are and more to do with how useful having a connection with them may be.

I despise the need to be 'of a high social status' to be interesting to other people.

To be interesting is to be entertaining and/or useful.

 

[Bock]

Social status (the second definition) is trivial to mate selection outside very social situations. When you hit on a woman in a grocery store, or chat online, or talk at a bar, or wherever, she isn't going to be thinking "he seems great, and all, but is he popular?"

With job acquisition too, I've never had an interviewer ask me "where would you say you stand among your friends and associates, do they think you're really cool?" Same goes for promotions. If you have the qualifications, skill, and work ethic to do the job, no employer (outside a very social environment) is going to hesitate just because you avoid the office social circles.

It's true that social competence is required for all those things. Charisma is even better, but the "you need to be hanging with the cool crowd to be validated as a person" concept is not really a part of adult life.

I assume OP meant "social status" as in the sum of your looks/charisma/money/resources/renown yada yada, and (sadly) how much it often affects our perception of people/personality - not as in who was the swaggiest douchebro in high school, why even mention that? Certainly nothing to base an argument about "social status" being irrelevant outside of the teenage years on. Maybe i'm missing something though, or getting hung up on semantics.

 

[The Gopher]

Social status (the second definition) is trivial to mate selection outside very social situations. When you hit on a woman in a grocery store, or chat online, or talk at a bar, or wherever, she isn't going to be thinking "he seems great, and all, but is he popular?"

With job acquisition too, I've never had an interviewer ask me "where would you say you stand among your friends and associates, do they think you're really cool?" Same goes for promotions. If you have the qualifications, skill, and work ethic to do the job, no employer (outside a very social environment) is going to hesitate just because you avoid the office social circles.

It's true that social competence is required for all those things. Charisma is even better, but the "you need to be hanging with the cool crowd to be validated as a person" concept is not really a part of adult life.

Yeah I think it's semantics. That's a very small percentage of what I perceive social status to mean.

Social status doesn't apply directly to those things in all cases. But if you have social status, you likely have experience or skills or ability that gave you social status which will give you the job.

Again you don't need social status to get jobs, you need the things that also give you social status.

Clarification on my post "Interesting" means pretty much what Cog said. Anything positive or useful.

 

[Sinny91]

Social status is key to social mobility..... but.... Fuck the system.
Social status or mobility bear little importance in the grand scheme of things.

 

[TwistedMind]

I don't need to prove anybody anything, despite myself.

 

[RaBind]

Social status is a label to help people identify each other. The individual's behaviour defines it most of the time.

 

[Pyropyro]

Social status is a label to help people identify each other. The individual's behaviour defines it most of the time.

^
We can only store and analyze so much data.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

This would hint that the flaw is the people doing the labeling. So social status would be a product of laziness and insufficient memory capabilities( in some cases)

 

[Pyropyro]

This would hint that the flaw is the people doing the labeling. So social status would be a product of laziness and insufficient memory capabilities( in some cases)

I think it has to do with survival too.

The recognition mechanism seems to work similarly to pareidolia We need to quickly assess the situation and make decisions. Unfortunately, like our urge to store sugar and salt within our bodies, it has some disadvantages in modern society.

 

[RaBind]

There's also the limitation of accuracy due to never having all the information. In fact most people don't even know themselves very well, so you can see how easy it can get for others to mislabel, and even if the label was 100% accurate you wouldn't know it.

 

[Dada00007]

No you have it the wrong way around. You don't have a high social status and then become interesting. You become interesting, and then develop a high social status. You only ever have a high social status if you are interesting in the first place.

So the question is: What is the purpose of being interesting or useful to other people?

Do you mean "social status" like having more money? or "social status" like being the popular kid in high school?

The first requires money and composure. The second doesn't actually matter once you're an adult (unless you intend to go into a highly social field).

Bock narrowed it down correctly. More precisely, I mean social status within a group. Being known for something of value, mostly not vain popularity but being known for something of merit. What is its value? Why is it good (for me)? What is it for?

 

[Pyropyro]

Bock narrowed it down correctly. More precisely, I mean social status within a group. Being known for something of value, mostly not vain popularity but being known for something of merit. What is its value? Why is it good (for me)? What is it for?

I assume that this is merely for yourself so I won't cite the benefit to others.

*It's a means to funnel out requests. If I'm known as the dude who's good with computers, most of the request that I'll get is about that. It would be too much of a chore to do something else. Other more suited people will have to do those things since they know that you can produce better value if you can focus on what you do.

*Reciprocal altruism People are more willing to help people who help them. People who are unknown are less likely to be helped compared to a person who is known to be valuable. You can see it in action in the ban discussions in this very forum.

*It helps you protect your genes (children and relatives are merely carriers of said genes anyways). Social status rubs on to people close to you and makes it likely to improve their fitness to pass your genes to the next generation.

 

[Jungle]

I think having an understanding and appreciation of social status is very strongly correlated with level of Se capability. As INTPs Se is our trickster function i.e. it is a complete blind spot to us, at least until we develop it...

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

I despise the need to be 'of a high social status' to be interesting to other people. I despise the whole idea of people needing to be high statused to have more people being interested in them and in their work.

Its so stupid.

Why can't we get along without it?

I despise working and building a career just because with better deeds which will grant me a higher status I will be seen better. So stupid.

Why do we need anything as a 'social status'?

I have a love-hate relationship with status, popularity, and such things. At one end, I deeply resent the fact that I have to compromise who I am in order to gain acceptance or even just to scrape by in life. And because I'm so susceptible to internalizing society's expectations and values, I've fashioned my lifestyle in such a way that I don't have to be exposed to that nonsense. Because I realize they're just lies. So I spend a lot of time alone, rarely go out, and this helps me feel content because I get the pressure off me and I know I am being me and only me. But...

sometimes I do want to be liked by people. Sometimes I do want to follow the crowd, be popular and feel connected to everyone else, to have the security of societal approval and not have to feel as if I'm somehow flawed.

Popularity, connection, status -- this is the price I pay to be myself and to live the way I think is right for me. What it comes down to is seeing society's arbitrary constructs for what they are: lies. And I don't want to live a lie.

My mind has been hijacked in the past, when I was young, and I've become very sensitive to any attempts to do this to me again.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Gopher has it right. The OPs disgust is a negative emotional reaction to an evolutionary hierarchical structure that has been been honed over time in both human and non-human alike. Since we're all a part of society, there is no escape. The only question is how will you handle the reality. Is there not room to be both an individual and have others be interested in you/attain status?

This type of sentiment seems to come up from time to time in other ways such as some male forum members complaining about not being able to attract women and how all of society has the cards stacked against them (this is an overgeneralization, so apologies). Explain to me please, how do those forum members who laude science/logic/rationality end up railing against the evolutionary cards we were all dealt? (Forgive the rant)

 

[Absurdity]

Gopher has it right. The OPs disgust is a negative emotional reaction to an evolutionary hierarchical structure that has been been honed over time in both human and non-human alike. Since we're all a part of society, there is no escape. The only question is how will you handle the reality. Is there not room to be both an individual and have others be interested in you/attain status?

This type of sentiment seems to come up from time to time in other ways such as some male forum members complaining about not being able to attract women and how all of society has the cards stacked against them (this is an overgeneralization, so apologies). Explain to me please, how do those forum members who laude science/logic/rationality end up railing against the evolutionary cards we were all dealt? (Forgive the rant)

Word.

Also contempt for social status is itself pretty conspicuously low status.

 

[Polaris]

I don't have strong feelings about this phenomenon. This would probably be partially rooted in obliviousness on my part and partially in a failure to comprehend the dynamics of groups. I have never been terribly aware of myself or anyone else for that matter, as being part of a hierarchy when in fact, that may have been/is the case. I have probably stepped on a few toes for that reason....

Although, it is inevitable that such a structure will form in any group - as long as people have fundamental differences in ability, and more importantly (and I suspect this may sadly often be the case in politics of any kind, be it corporate or governmental ) ability to climb the hierarchy through different means that may have nothing to do with ability or skills necessary to real public demands. Which is why the world is fucked

Charisma, socio - economic background, ability to manipulate others, good looks, etc. serve as efficient deceptive veils to cover the eyes and ears of those who don't care, don't think, or don't have the resources to dig deeper.

A high social status is necessary for getting certain types of stuff done, particularly on a higher level. Exposure and familiarity are important factors in building trust, even if the product sold is essentially crap. It's like a certain type of jam sold here in this country - it has nothing resembling berries in it, it's just sugar, thickener, vague berryish flavour and colour, but because it has been around for so long, is cheap and readily available in all supermarkeds, people buy it and think it's "great".

I view people the same way. If they look great and have the charm, they will have my attention. For a while. It is pretty easy to see where it all falls apart though. From my perspective, that is. I understand the public appeal because the public wants those things - it is what we have been conditioned to trust through repeated exposure and increasing familiarity.

So yes - social status. A necessity and a liability.

Just don't buy that jam. Trust me.

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Gopher has it right. The OPs disgust is a negative emotional reaction to an evolutionary hierarchical structure that has been been honed over time in both human and non-human alike.

I'm disgusted by many aspects of my evolutionary honing as a human male.

Since we're all a part of society, there is no escape. The only question is how will you handle the reality.

"Reality" is negotiable. Limits can be pushed and redefined. This process of redefinition has been and is ongoing in human history. I think it's Pyropyro who has that quote about "the unreasonable man" as he relates to "progress" in his signature...

Is there not room to be both an individual and have others be interested in you/attain status?

For people who hate compromising or would be compelled to compromise too much, not really. Some are more sensitive than others when it comes to these things, obviously; those endowed with an outlook or set of desires departing too far from what is imposed on them by the outside world naturally have the motivation to rebel. It's pretty much a given that society is going to judge you very harshly, that if naturally inclined to go against the flow of social expectations you'll have to conceal or rewrite these parts of yourself to get by, and in all probability eventually end up either cracking under the pressure and lashing out against the tyrant in some bad way, or sadly losing your perceived essence should you keep up the charade too long, perhaps left feeling like a shell of your former self.

Conversely, conformity might become worth it in retrospect. Maturation is a universal process, change the spice of life. Depends on the person and their principles...

This type of sentiment seems to come up from time to time in other ways such as some male forum members complaining about not being able to attract women and how all of society has the cards stacked against them (this is an overgeneralization, so apologies). Explain to me please, how do those forum members who laude science/logic/rationality end up railing against the evolutionary cards we were all dealt? (Forgive the rant)

I'm not bitter about my situation vis-à-vis women. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to mate with someone who isn't conducive to their survival or who doesn't mesh with their preferences. It's fine to want to live a certain way yourself for whatever reason, but it's unreasonable to expect others to join in if it's an unappealing kind of lifestyle, and it's unethical to try to drag others therein. Martyrs can't be choosers. If having a mate means so much to you, you should quit your whining and do what it takes to acquire one.

Rant forgiven.

Also contempt for social status is itself pretty conspicuously low status.

Yes and no. Plenty of Westerners are contemptuous of Western privilege; plenty of other Westerners revel in it. Plenty of non-Westerners worship and wish they were Westerners; plenty of other non-Westerners despise the higher status of Westerners and wish only to be themselves.

One need not be at or near the bottom of the human pyramid to hate the fact that it exists.

 

[Miss spelt]

Resign to a life of no status.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Word.

Also contempt for social status is itself pretty conspicuously low status.

That's a given, right? I don't think one must assume that anyone who claims to hate social status does it to gain social status, or to conceal low status. All we have to do to dissolve that rigid conclusion is to introduce the idea of honest conversation.

The days when hope and duty and peer pressure might have been poisoning my mind with [the pathetic oxymoron that despising the notion of social status would help to improve my social status] are over, yet i can't honestly say i've grown any less bitter and frustrated about social status. Still hate what it means. And what it means isn't meritocracy or organization: what it means is flawed meritocracy. That's really how to define "social status" unless one is keen on wasting words.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Although, it is inevitable that such a structure will form in any group - as long as people have fundamental differences in ability, and more importantly (and I suspect this may sadly often be the case in politics of any kind, be it corporate or governmental ) ability to climb the hierarchy through different means that may have nothing to do with ability or skills necessary to real public demands. Which is why the world is fucked

This describes precisely what's problematic about social status. You might as well despise the notion.

 

[Absurdity]

Yes and no. Plenty of Westerners are contemptuous of Western privilege; plenty of other Westerners revel in it. Plenty of non-Westerners worship and wish they were Westerners; plenty of other non-Westerners despise the higher status of Westerners and wish only to be themselves.

One need not be at or near the bottom of the human pyramid to hate the fact that it exists.

Why does Western vs non-Western matter? Social status plays out in daily life regardless of your origins, and Westerners certainly didn't invent it.

That's a given, right? I don't think one must assume that anyone who claims to hate social status does it to gain social status, or to conceal low status. All we have to do to dissolve that rigid conclusion is to introduce the idea of honest conversation.

The days when hope and duty and peer pressure might have been poisoning my mind with [the pathetic oxymoron that despising the notion of social status would help to improve my social status] are over, yet i can't honestly say i've grown any less bitter and frustrated about social status. Still hate what it means. And what it means isn't meritocracy or organization: what it means is flawed meritocracy. That's really how to define "social status" unless one is keen on wasting words.

Agree in principle.

Maybe I'm just being a fascist Te-head and looking for applicability too much...

 

[Brontosaurie]

Agree in principle.

Maybe I'm just being a fascist Te-head and looking for applicability too much...

LOL

 

[Minuend]

How do I end up writing so much, I'll just spoiler all of this unsightly thing

Spoiler

I don't have strong feelings about this phenomenon. This would probably be partially rooted in obliviousness on my part and partially in a failure to comprehend the dynamics of groups. I have never been terribly aware of myself or anyone else for that matter, as being part of a hierarchy when in fact, that may have been/is the case.

Similar. Though, I guess I do notice group dynamics to a certain degree, but don't think them in terms of social hierarchy. When I first observe people in a group I tend to divide them into archetypes, or rough impressions of their personalities. I then try to observe what traits they have and how those influence others. So I get a approximate picture of the dynamics between them. I don't tend to think of it as social status, though, more of an observation of the result of personalities and environment. Some having "status" isn't something that registers quite like that with me, I think. I don't think in terms of who have higher status, but who has personality traits that are more influential and how.

---

I guess if I try to actively label people with social statuses, I find that some people with more influence can have less social status or be lower in the hierarchy and vice versa. I'm also more preoccupied with latching on to people I find interesting or fun to be around, rather than who is statusy. I don't really care whether people attribute social status to me or place me low in a hierarchy.

When it comes to how it shapes the world etc etc, I guess I've just accepted that the world suck in many ways like that and I've kinda given up on it. I don't expect much from most people, I just accept things and people like they are (free is free, shit is shit).

Tangentio:

Spoiler

I used to alter my behavior more automatically in the past, as I was aware of what responses people expected in me and how to behave to be accepted and liked. Nowadays I've kinda dropped that personality and become more "myself".

For me it's not important to be accepted by a lot of people. As long as people ignore me, it's fine. If people start harassing me that might be a bit stressful in the long run, though.

There are cheat codes to be accepted into an environment (some environment are not as easily hacked though). Like in the past I found that by being a hardworker, I'd be automatically noticed and respected by people who valued that trait. These were long term employees with influence in the work space, which meant their opinion of my work had positive influence with other co-workers, something that probably led me to be more accepted in general.

Some environments are naturally more tolerant of weirdos than others. If one find oneself very weird, then I'd try to get a job in a place with other weirdos if possible. Jobs within programming and that type of thing for example

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

Why does Western vs non-Western matter? Social status plays out in daily life regardless of your origins, and Westerners certainly didn't invent it.

It was meant merely as an illustrative example, the essence of which was summed up in the last sentence.

The days when hope and duty and peer pressure might have been poisoning my mind with [the pathetic oxymoron that despising the notion of social status would help to improve my social status] are over, yet i can't honestly say i've grown any less bitter and frustrated about social status. Still hate what it means. And what it means isn't meritocracy or organization: what it means is flawed meritocracy. That's really how to define "social status" unless one is keen on wasting words.

What would unflawed meritocracy in human societies look like to you?

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

"Reality" is negotiable. Limits can be pushed and redefined. This process of redefinition has been and is ongoing in human history. I think it's Pyropyro who has that quote about "the unreasonable man" as he relates to "progress" in his signature...



For people who hate compromising or would be compelled to compromise too much, not really. Some are more sensitive than others when it comes to these things, obviously; those endowed with an outlook or set of desires departing too far from what is imposed on them by the outside world naturally have the motivation to rebel. It's pretty much a given that society is going to judge you very harshly, that if naturally inclined to go against the flow of social expectations you'll have to conceal or rewrite these parts of yourself to get by, and in all probability eventually end up either cracking under the pressure and lashing out against the tyrant in some bad way, or sadly losing your perceived essence should you keep up the charade too long, perhaps left feeling like a shell of your former self.

You're making my point that there is room for the individual and social status. Pushing limits, being true to yourself can make you interesting and garner status in a group. Social status is not about conformity or even accommodation. It's a fluid relative position that is based on both an individuals qualities and achievements that is judged by the group. You don't get a choice. You will be judged.

I found an interesting article on the topic.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201008/two-routes-social-status

 

[A_Scanner_Darkly]

You're making my point that there is room for the individual and social status. Pushing limits, being true to yourself can make you interesting and garner status in a group. Social status is not about conformity or even accommodation. It's a fluid relative position that is based on both an individuals qualities and achievements that is judged by the group. You don't get a choice. You will be judged.

Eh? Was that my point?

If that's what you made of my little diatribe, I guess...

I found an interesting article on the topic...

"In a lot of ways, a prestigious man really is a girl's dream. While there is some overlap between dominant and prestigious men-- prestigious men, like dominant men, are confident, achievement-oriented, and extraverted..."

W...T...F?

So not only does the source have a severe leftist bias (John Lennon = Authentic pride whereas Donald Trump = Hubristic pride? Wah?) but now they want to make me feel bad about my introversion? And to top it off, my value as a person is reduced to a function of the degree to which I attract women?

I give up.

 

[ygnextend]

Hanging on to status would be exhausting. Just look at some of the people who try desperately to be 'more' all the time. They look older overnight because of stress that status brings. What a shit life...everything & nothing

 

[Yellow]

Social status (the second definition) is trivial to mate selection outside very social situations. When you hit on a woman in a grocery store, or chat online, or talk at a bar, or wherever, she isn't going to be thinking "he seems great, and all, but is he popular?"

With job acquisition too, I've never had an interviewer ask me "where would you say you stand among your friends and associates, do they think you're really cool?" Same goes for promotions. If you have the qualifications, skill, and work ethic to do the job, no employer (outside a very social environment) is going to hesitate just because you avoid the office social circles.

It's true that social competence is required for all those things. Charisma is even better, but the "you need to be hanging with the cool crowd to be validated as a person" concept is not really a part of adult life.

I sit/stand corrected..
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...le-the-user-review-app-you-didnt-dare-ask-for

 

[Sabreena]

Because of the class system and the division of labor is connected to how much social status you have. In our complicated modern societies, some people need to do the dirty work. So we push them to the side, stigmatize them and pretend they're inferior to us.

And people with more social skills and resources get ahead. They can work the system or climb the ladder or whatever.

 

[Draco]

A lack of equality creates a social equilibrium. As societies develope, a gap between people of higher statuses and lower statuses grows with the progress they make. More subgroups form, natural leaders and power hungry people rise while everyone else falls.