It's always weird to me when people cannot fathom that others think and operate differently, here we have an entire thread of people essentially insisting that social status _must_ matter to everyone.
I'm on the spectrum and growing up I worked with special needs kids with my mother as she ran a non-profit focused on specials needs community. Let me tell you, some people are simply not cognizant of social status and there's a whole swath of people who are passingly aware but find it irrelevant to their life. Solitary creatures that go their own way exist in all kinds of highly social species.
This thread feels akin to threads you occasionally see where a bunch of selfish people insist altruistic acts _cannot_ exist. Their insistent claims against the possibility of altruistic acts only reveal their internal state, they aren't high quality arguments, just assumptive assertions by people who can't imagine alternate mental states.
Some people just want to spend their lonely numbered days free.
The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it. It is an incredibly broad claim. I would readily agree that many people are happy on their own, go against the majority, do not care much for society, aloof from social opinion, etc.
But the claim that some people are literally immune to status strikes me as implausible. It would imply, for example, that people on the spectrum are literally unbothered by being mocked, insulted, berated, laughed at, rejected, abandoned and so on.
Is that truly what you're claiming?
I took this broad definition of status from Improv. This is the actual status one would be sensitive to or not on a biochemical level, because it addresses our feelings and actions as they exist, rather than what our title or formal status says.
"Keith Johnstone understands status as something one does, independent of the social status one has. Social status represents one's rank in a social order. At the upper end are secular and spiritual leaders (kings, priests), at the bottom end, dependents and outcasts. Social rank is approximately demonstrated through offices, titles, awards, and status symbols. Johnstone's "status", on the other hand, comes from the behavior of the characters in a specific encounter. He stresses that there is no neutral status; rather, some sort of difference is always present. A good actor is always conscious of the relative status of the portrayed characters and can playfully vary it."
> How do you explain that some people are not sensitive to social status?
You're interpretation of that question:
> The original claim was that some people are "not sensitive to status" and have no biochemical changes from it.
As a 3rd party observer I don't have confidence that the original question and your interpretation of it are equivalent, perhaps OP could provide clarity.
I think you must have been commenting on a different thread and accidentally posted your response in this one. It seems off topic or just like your reposting the same thread in reverse order without actually reading it? Very confusing.
I'm on the spectrum and growing up I worked with special needs kids with my mother as she ran a non-profit focused on specials needs community. Let me tell you, some people are simply not cognizant of social status and there's a whole swath of people who are passingly aware but find it irrelevant to their life. Solitary creatures that go their own way exist in all kinds of highly social species.
This thread feels akin to threads you occasionally see where a bunch of selfish people insist altruistic acts _cannot_ exist. Their insistent claims against the possibility of altruistic acts only reveal their internal state, they aren't high quality arguments, just assumptive assertions by people who can't imagine alternate mental states.
Some people just want to spend their lonely numbered days free.