Let's agree that status is about what people think (other people think) about you. Are all people's opinions equal, or are some people's opinions worth more than others? Furthermore, does it matter how many people think you're high status vs low status? Is your status a scalar measure, and if so how is it calculated?

If you accept all of this, you'll get the following surprising results:

1. If status is about what other people think about you, then your status can change extraneously without you making any changes, by a single person's opinion about you changing based on new info they receive. If status is a discrete or binary measure, then apply marginal status change along with the intermediate value theorem and there will be a point where your status changes by a single person's arbitrary flux in opinion about you or people like you.

2. If status can be modeled as some sort of scalar dot product (as a weighted measure of people's opinions about you), then your status can change extraneously without you making any changes, without any other person's opinion about you changing, simply by having another person get to know you (and thereby tipping your status scale in one direction or another).

3. If status is also about what other people think that other people think about you, then your status can change extraneously without you making any changes, or anyone that knows you making any changes or changing any opinions, simply by having their status change according to someone else's opinion of them (and you may not even know this person). Which leads to the counterintuitive result that you can be in a room with everyone you know having a great time, but you suddenly go from high-status to low-status because someone outside of that room changes their opinion about someone else inside that room.

4. If status is a global measure (everyone's opinion of yourself and everyone else matters), then your status can change without you making any changes, without anyone you know making any changes or changing any opinions about themselves, and furthermore, without anyone else in the world making any changes or changing any opinions about anyone else in the world. This would happen if aliens were watching us and had opinions about our status.

A rebuttal might be that status is not a global measure, but a local one--only certain people matter within a certain space-time boundary. Fine, then if you stop caring or thinking about what those people think you can stop worrying about status.

If you take the localization principle of status to its conclusion, the only person's opinion of your status that actually matters is your own. So if you stop caring or thinking about status, it doesn't matter.

A rebuttal to that might be that status determines what you can do among or get from other people (i.e. what your boss thinks about you determining your promotion). Fine, then try and associate with people that don't care about status and it won't matter.

A rebuttal to that might be that regardless of whether people think about status, you'll still be judged on SOMETHING for your compensation, raises, promotions, etc. At this point I would concede that your ability to get things done, to be a likeable person, to add value, to communicate, to organize, to bullshit, etc all matter. But there is no simple measure of this (like how well-dressed you are, whether you look rich/poor and are actually poor/rich, whether you counter-signal, etc), except maybe for beginners that need a simple model of social interaction to get started.

My own belief is that status is nothing more than a game that only has meaning when you are playing with others who are playing the same game as you. It does not have any global meaning in and of itself (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy)). Sometimes I play it for fun and sometimes I don't, but I don't place any real value in it. Maybe doing this makes me a (low|high) value individual. Who cares?