it is commonly assumed that humans have an innate desire/urge/need to be high status, and that this is of course a positional good, and that therefore not everybody can be successful at it, and that some people are therefore going to get shafted
clearly there is lots of status-seeking behavior that we can observe among people that this model would explain
is there another explanation? is there a better explanation?
I have another explanation that seems about as good, and is better in at least one sense: it's at least theoretically possible to build an
omniwin-based culture if this explanation holds, which is not true of the classic inherently competitive model
it remains to be seen, via experimentation on small and large scales, which of these models holds up best, or whether another explanation is needed
the alternate explanation goes as follows: humans have an innate desire/urge/need for dignity, and in hierarchical cultures (including most of the cultures anybody reading this has known) only high status apes get dignity, and thus within such a culture some people's need for dignity is not going to get met
to the extent that this is true, it suggests that (in a society with enough material abundance) there's a stable attractor where everybody is treated with dignity, no matter their rank on various axes, and thus climbing various status ladders becomes relevant to only a small number of people who particularly care about something that can only be achieved by doing so
power abundance
whatever power I have, I will tend to use it to satisfy my needs and wants, in whatever way seems best. if I care about you, I will tend to use it to satisfy your needs and wants as well, etc. if I feel that you're a threat to me, I may use some of my power to try to mitigate that threat, whether by guarding myself, threatening you, disarming you, or destroying you.
to the extent that we can each meet our own needs better by ongoingly mutually empowering each other, and we have common knowledge of that fact, there is no defect option. there is no way to get ahead at someone else's expense. in such a world, we will be tend to use our power to (among other things) give each other more power, in order that better win-wins will emerge
to the extent that that's not true (ie that either of us can meet our own needs better by exploiting or coercing the other) we will tend to avoid empowering each other because if I let you have enough power then I expect you to use it against me, and vice versa.
therefore developing increased skill at finding omniwin options moves us more towards a world where there is no defect option