It's often said here that money does not equal status. That's why a good-looking MILF will cheat on her hubby despite the fact that's worth 3.4 million, or a professional making six figures.

I agree that this appears to be the case in real life, but struggle to understand why. Almost all other redpill truths make sense to me in a psychological, sociological, or evolutionary context. But this one I can't wrap my head around.

The way I see it: WEALTH = POWER = STATUS. The man with the most gold was stronger, smarter, or more charming than the rest. That's why he has the best house in the village, the best horse, and can give his mate/offspring the most meat. And his offspring ought inherit his strength, intelligence, or charisma.

I've read/observed IRL the following are the biggest sources of status:

  • profession based status: like doctor/professor. ACHIEVEMENT = POWER = STATUS

  • social based status: local celebrity or leader of a large social circle. FAME = POWER = STATUS

  • status based on physical power: incredible physique. STRENGTH = POWER = STATUS

Consider the rich is either smarter, more charismatic, or stronger than the rest. So wealth ought to indicate achievement, fame, or strength.

So what gives, why the hell doesn't wealth equate to status when compared to other sources? Does this disjunction stem from psychology, the social structure, evolution, or what?