


Social status and health

Misery index


See article

Readers' comments



Is it really low-social status or the individual's programmed perception of what this means? In other words, an individual who is indifferent to low or high social status and discovers nourishment and growth outside societal hierarchy is immune, or rather enjoys all (and more) of the benefits mentioned irrespective of hierarchy. When you truly know you know, regardless of where society artificially places you :)

JoshTheTraveler in reply to soulsail

Being mentally indifferent to social status does not necessarily equate to immunity against its effects. That's a far leap to take without some testing. More interestingly, if high social status provides benefits to health, then we cannot assume that your indifferent individual gains any of those benefits, much less "enjoys all (and more)" of them as you put it. That individual is not of a high status, so what makes you assume they will have the benefits of an individual of high status? Also, social placement may or may not be arbitrary or artificial. Sounds like a mixing of ideology and science...


It doesn't take a giant conceptual leap to understand that people at the bottom of the social pyramid suffer more stress. By definition, they have less control of their lives and access to tools to mitigate their problems.

A more interesting question is what to do about it. The answer for the right is to encourage people to climb the ladder, creating opportunities for the pursuit of higher status. The answer from the left is to engineer transfers from the top as a way to "flatten the pyramid".

Neither answer is practical, because we cannot abolish human nature. Yeah, I know that some people want to give it a shot - good luck trying it!

soulsail in reply to AtlantisKing

Human Nature has been distorted, repressed and programmed. It's no longer nature. The zero-sum game of climbing the ladder is directly preconditioned on others falling off or being on lower rungs of the ladder. When one's identity is built based on the status of others then we are all trapped, because true freedom will always be denied since the juices of growth will be rerouted to ensuring "others" are "in their place". The crowd of humanity is indeed living in a rhesus macaque society ignorant of their potential to blossom from within. And when such blossoming happens navigating from low to high status becomes easy, inconsequential and done only as a side note to achieve other goals. Until this happens status will be the prison that holds all behind the invisible (but very real) psychological bars, be you "low" or "high".


So the Queen and family aren't just superhuman when they routinely enjoy over a hundred years of good health?


If rising prosperity gives us greater freedom, less stress and more control over our lives and interactions with the world, perhaps we're all destined to be living past 100 within a few decades?

That is, if "social status" is about freedom from stress factors, good diet, family time, command over resources and other such things, rising technology will be a good substitute for status improvements across the board (would perhaps offer an additional explanation for why life expectancy jumps by 4 months for every year that passes).

Reuben James

The thesis of the article is well taken, and I salute FRobert's original views on status among ranking individuals. But there is something new under the sun, a profound evolutionary development that is distorting both leadership in democracies and the results of democratic society's behavior and performance. Just as agrarian society was superseded by industrial society, organizational society is becoming the norm, with new challenges and opportunities.

The history of psychopathic-type behavior goes back to at least the time of Aristotle, but new social orders have created rapidly changing and growing corporate and financial structures; psychopaths have been quick to exploit this changing environment, itself an evolutionary development. Whereas the industrial culture created stable environments and reward systems (a gold watch after forty years with the company), the new organizational structures focus on and reward appearance over accomplishment and mobility over stability, an ideal environment for a glib, fast talking psychopath who can move on before his behavior is recognized and evaluated. A "successful psychopath" (Professor Fritzon's term) may see rewards of millions or billions of dollars, straight out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers. Think Enron, WorldCom, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bernie Madoff, and Jon Corzine. Professor Clive Boddy's "Corporate Psychopath" concept is applicable here.

It is characteristic of psychopaths that they engage in self-destructive behavior, after they have done significant damage to others. On a global scale, the final result is the defeat of the Axis psychopaths in i945, and the collapse of the Soviet Marxist psychopaths in 1991.

Corporate and political psychopaths are becoming dominant in the democracies, as illustrated by the American national debt which has gone from essentially zero to over $15 trillion within the last thirty years, with absolutely nothing of value being accomplished for the $15 trillion corruptly wasted. On the contrary, everyone is worse off than they were thirty years ago except for the psychopathic nomenclatura. The EUSSR appears to be even worse off.

We have ignored our own values, our own Constitution, and our own laws in order to allow psychopaths to exploit us.

Thanatos Savehn

Note that the various socioeconomic status (SES) investigations have consistently shown (when they've examined the dimension) that the effect is real, and significant, but only for those who play the pecking order game. For those who constitutionally don't care about keeping up with the Joneses, those who are happy in their own skins and those who don't care a whit about how they rank, SES doesn't affect outcomes. People like my Dad, who can tour a great mansion, admire its beauty and yet cheerily leave it saying "thank Heaven we've not a house like this! How would we ever keep it up?" do far better than the grasping social climber who despairs of ever moving up from his 4000 sq ft McMansion.

wilfred knight

....So, if perceived social order affects gene expression and our immune systems, where does that put he self-help literature's mantra- FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT ?
Self-Help books advocate acting out roles of success, sustained by visualizations & repeated verbal affirmations to kid our brains into believing our glorious new life is here & now to be enjoyed.
This is all outlined by the English Doctor ,Lancaster Adams ,in the book-Revelations of your self-help book secrets -http://sbpracom/LancasterAdams/
Can the researchers duplicate these biochemical markers in the bloodstream of self-help gurus who just VISUALIZE that they are at the top of the heap ??


I'm not sure that this study justifies much optimism. By definition, 20% of the population will always fall in the bottom 20% in terms of social status. If that low status results in increased stress and poor health, then it seems inevitable that a certain percentage of the population will suffer these effects.

Tang Nivri II

This makes perfectly good sense and should not be a surprise. How to translate this study's results into good public policy however may require, alas, another study of the humans who conducted the study and not the monkeys...


Glad to see that medicine is finally recognizing the role of stress in creating disease. This research reminds me of the old finding that Oscar winners outlive Oscar nominees. My interpretation is that social ranking is a proxy for the esteem of others (not self-esteem). Individuals who are highly regarded in a sincere way, not sycophants, by their peers and subordinates, will be less stressed, have immune systems in better balance, and generally be healthier longer.


Interesting. So how does this square with the increasing incidence of the "rich man's disease" - ie, chronic diseases such as asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis?

These are not any more rich men's diseases in the traditional sense as the experience of emerging economies are showing where the middle class is taking to "modern" lifestyles and the attendant increase in fast food consumption, bad eating habits, lack of exercise, and increasing pace of life. Most of the people affected by these are the very same ones that have enjoyed the benefits of high growth and increasing incomes. In other words, those who have a relatively higher status in society.

Anakha82 in reply to Jaysrin

Most of that can be explained by the fact that status is local. A poor person in New York may be objectively better off than many middle class individuals in Bangladesh, but the're in very different social circles, and thus are irrelevant to each other when it comes to measuring social status.

Jaysrin in reply to Anakha82

I am not making an inter-circle comparison, only that there is increasing prevalence of chronic disease among certain classes in emerging economies. And these classes, in such economies, have a certain status. Going by the study finding, these classes should not be susceptible to such disease. It's the intra-circle circumstance that I was speaking of. To put it simply, the middle class in India have a certain "social status" and these classes, per the study, should show decreasing disease incidence. They display the opposite, however. A case of growth economy-induced lifestyles trumping the status theory.


The issue isn't status "per se", but the anxiety that comes with the insecurity of low status in a dog eat dog (or monkey eat monkey) society. Remove the insecurity/anxiety and status becomes much less relevant. It's a big jump, but it would be interesting if we could run the equivalent statistics on human societies that have effective social safety nets (some European countries?)


All over the world even extreme poor people struggle to increase their social status.Not for health but social status gave them respect,self esteem,save them form insult and injured.I think this urge you found out even in aboriginal society also.My be this urge arises from survival instinct which deeply rooted in our brain.


This is the FIRST article, that I Happened to READ in this week's Edition. I FEEL So Fortunate, to have done So!
In the Un-Likely Event, that it Happens to be the ONLY article I READ this week, I FEEL Beyond Grateful for the Excellent Efforts of "The Economist"!!

This FIRST article, was (MORE than GOOD) Enough to Elicit an Exclusive Set of "Radical-Thoughts" from the FAR-WEST:

I FEEL like I could Write A Doctoral-Dissertation, just Based on the Fascinating-Work of these Brilliant BRAINS & Magnificent MINDS(REBEL ReSearchers)!!!
I KNOW about "Social-Status" (in my Twisted-MIND I FEEL Like I BeLong to the 0.01%), BUT I'm an ENTRENCHENED with the 99.99% of US!!!!
I LIKE the WORK that's Being UnderTaken by these Scientists, since they HELP Explain (Once Again) WHY it's ALL about the GENES!!!!!

It's TIME to AcTivate those DORMANT DNA Strands, Before it's TOO LATE to........

Peace, Love & Respect.

Thucydides431 in reply to BIN SAFI

For some reason I decided to read the entirety of your post putting emphasis on the capitalised words. Turns out they are just random words and their emphasis didn't help the meaning. Now my head hurts.


Last week The Economist was bemoaning the inflationary tendency in job titles etc. This week, this article implies that such things might in fact be beneficial because the lull people into thinking their status is higher than it really is, with resultant health benefits. Here in America the conclusion is obvious: scrap all company health plans (which are very expensive to maintain) and replace them with hugely inflated titles (which are essentially free, aside from the cost of printing some new business cards). Shelf-stackers can instantly become Senior Executive Vice Presidents, Replenishment & Item Alignment Division. Who needs anti-biotics when title placebos are so easy to arrange?


As I though, Mr. Spock, of the Starship Enterprise, worked all this out a long time ago. Check the log, really. Those Vulcans !!!


WADR, these studies are kind of lame. More fodder for the Social Darwinists. The research itself isn't the problem per se, it's how we interpret these studies and draw lame conclusions that end up in articles and subheads etc that reinforce a winner takes all view. Honestly, it's not hard to see that people in 'lower' roles in an organisation may feel more stress and anxiety. Being blase about it, assuming we couldn't be much better (e.g., set up much more effective work environments/collaborative work structures that aren't completely fear-based) than that is what's annoying about this article.

M. Otero. in reply to 7L9uxogS86

The risk of people inflating and deliberately misinterpreting these studies is not a good enough reason not to do them. You can't establish that our biology doesn't play a role by refusing to study it.

Anakha82 in reply to 7L9uxogS86

I'm not sure how "Social Darwinists" could misinterpret this study. After all, it showed that when the social status of the monkeys changed, so did their gene expression. It's almost entirely nurture over nature.

7L9uxogS86 in reply to Anakha82

Not misinterpret it, but use it to 'prove' that winning is everything. The whole tone of the study and article is just blase on that point.

Sure, you can change your gene expression and become alpha one healthy. But only as a 'winner'.


I am wondering in what way the need for power ("power" here defined as being in a position to control rather than controlled) figures in the equation of social status and health.
Is there an adaptive mechanism that can move the organism away from the need (I am in no way referring to "revolution" which only reassigns who gets to control and who gets to be controlled). In degrees and finally in whole?
Or is the need and the strength of the need itself a condition determined by genes?
If it is, to what extent can Nurture temper the need to the advantage of health?
I have no answers.

teacup775 in reply to ashbird

Well within orangutans and certain squid species there are two male types. The typical type and ones that are 'camouflaged' as females. With the cephelopds, they can simply don female coloration and patterns, while male apes carry the physique of a female. They avoid most of the dominence conflict by simply slipping by the notice of fighting males or through the territory of dominant males, and quietly finding the females. Probably not what you had in mind.

Need for power in either gender I think always tied to reproductive success species wise, but in the above examples and in our own experience, individuals are born with character traits, which effects strategy.

Also in some monkey species, males accrue favor with the females by baby sitting their young, so there are other strategies out there.

ashbird in reply to teacup775

Hi teacup 775,

This is to briefly acknowledge your comment to my comment.

I believe you completely misread what I said in my comment. I did not say anything close to what you apparently took to be what I said and proceeded to reply based on your misreading of it.

But thanks very much anyway.

teacup775 in reply to ashbird

I know what your getting at. The need for power is wrapped up in the mechanics of reproductive success for each species, at least the evolutionist would say this. The need is conditioned by the genes, in as much as they are an expression of strategy the individual undertakes.

But some clever elements of each species avoid the whole struggle for dominance normally played about between males.

It would also be said that health is a means to an end (making the next generation). Nature isn't kind about it.

ashbird in reply to teacup775

Thanks again, teacup775.
If you go back and read my comment again, more carefully this time, you will find there I defined the term "power" for the meaning I used it in my comment. I said: "power" here defined as being in a position to control rather than controlled.
That definition bears no relationship whatsoever to the theory you posit, the sum and subtance of your comment. A theory, one out of more than one out there, mind you , that attempts to explain the origin of the need for power. The theory uses cuttle fish and one species of monkeys as experimental subjects. And btw, the theory is also gender-based and gender-specific.
As it turns out, WHAT theory to explain WHAT is NOT what I addressed in my comment.
What I addressed in my comment was given the need to feel being in a position to control rather than controlled exists, what can be done to bypass or ameliorate that need in order not to be stuck with bad health for those stuck in a postion of "lesser power".
I hope this helps. I appreciate your input.
This is my last post regarding this comment. I have no desire to belabor it.

ashbird in reply to teacup775


teacup, as I have noted before, why don't you simply try to read first before you comment ? Respond to what a writer has written, not what you think he/she has written. Making assumptions is a reflection of lack of self-discipline. It wastes your time and the other person's time. Notice you were the only reader who appeared to have made the assumptions you made regarding what I wrote in my original comment. That ought to tell you something about yourself.

I give both of us high marks for our efforts to improve our chemistry as fellow bloggers.

Please understand I am not in any competition with you whehter in substance, style, wit or ability to write English when I comment on these TE topics. There are far smarter, fluenter, cleverer bloggers all around everyday when I open TE on every subject, yourself at times among them (when you read before you comment). There is no need to prove anything vis-a-vis me who is just another blogger among many.


ashbird in reply to Anjin-San

Thank you, Anjin-San.

I am very familiar with Sapolsky's work. He was the lecturer in a number of my professional CE seminars in years past. Sigh... I really was just speaking my mind in my original comment. I ended it deliberately with a query rather than an answer. I was not seeking an answer for myself.

I am very sensitive about dispensing mental health Rx, even in situations where I feel very much compelled to. It is not my role on these pages to do what I do in my profesional office. In any event, who wants a busman's holiday? As I said, I enjoy reading the smart and clever comments from TE's commenters. I learn from them. Where I speak least, I learn most. That is the idea. Occasionally I have really enjoyable exchanges with some commenters whose intellect I admire (you being one - :)) and that makes it more fun.

Thanks again for bringing to my attention about Teacups' separate comment.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Food banks: Not so Christian
Blighty 56 mins ago
Daily chart: The economic consequences of Lent
Graphic detail 3 hrs 9 mins ago


Products & events