The games of status.

Man, so 04:30 this morning I had the last bar of chocolate I ever intend to have:

I feel like I should have this picture framed.

I have a headache though, I ate a lot of caffeine yesterday. So much so that 18 hours hasn't completely solved it. 

I am just reflecting on status though. I have had a bit of a brainwave about why the world is like it is in relation to status. 

There are two ways status can be applied. One is from meritocracy. This is the natural way we subconsciously expect things to work and the way they work on the deeper level. The other is through a kind of nepotism. 

The point is with status, as with a lot of things. The thing itself is so desireable that it is too valuable to give out as it would naturally do so according to a kind of natural law. This thing being money or respect. 

The reason that it does naturally happen through a kind of meritocracy. The gaining of status. Is because if someone does really well at a certain area. Are really good at a thing, a job, learning of some teachings. Whatever it happens to be. They have not just gained the efficiency in what is obvious visually. They are not just knowledgeable of the basics of the job. Through long term experience they also have put ideas together and really understand that job. 

In order for these teachings to be applied. They have to be given that status. They have to have a certain level of assumed competence and people need to listen to them even when what they say it is not initially obvious how it is going to help anything. Because a real high performer will understand a few steps ahead of everyone else. This is the natural reason that increase in status happens. Because it is efficient strategically. 

But when status cannot be given out because it has to be pooled in the hands of a central planning system of some type. When the manager, for instance, has to have that status. When someone gains status in the job, and is listened to more because they are fun in the after work socialising, or they are attractive. Then the high performer, the person that should be given this status, hits a kind of glass ceiling. 

With the incredible efficiency and understandings gained from that, but without the status, there is an issue, a blockage of sorts. The high performer has to be controlled more. They might make comments about how things are done. They might show competence above the manager and while it might be deliberate, it might be a force of will. Depending on the individual. It might not even be noticed they are stepping on toes. 

But this state of affairs cannot be continued. So the high performer that gave so much to the job when they started. They have to be controlled. In order to convince the high performer to carry on giving, the group has to devalue what the high performer gives anyway. They also often believe it. The person will meet dead silence when they make suggestions and such like that. Whereas before their competence was a threat, people engaged with them easily and everything seemed fine. 

This, I believe, is the reason for a lot of how the world is. This is the reason companies treat high performers like dirt. Because they are too busy giving people who don't deserve it unearned status. 

I wonder if it is a state of affairs that can continue?