A Loser:

ChatGPT:

"What is a “loser” (a person with low coalitional value) in CVT?

Seen through CVT, a “loser” (in the colloquial or theoretical sense) is someone who, in many relevant coalitional contexts, is assessed (by self and others) as having low coalitional value. Concretely:

• They contribute little (or less than alternative people) to coalition goals, or are seen as less effective/contributing.

• They fail to send strong credible signals of coalitional usefulness.

• Other members (or would-be coalition partners) less often defer to them; they struggle to command deference.

• They may be at the bottom of the deference hierarchy: when decisions, influence, or conflict resolution occur, they are less likely to be heeded, trusted, or followed.

In other words: a “loser” is someone who, in social and coalition settings, repeatedly fails to persuade others of their usefulness, so they lack status, influence, and favorable relationships.

---

Psychological and social consequences / correlates of being low in coalitional value

If someone is persistently low in perceived coalitional value, CVT suggests a number of likely consequences. (Some are more speculative, but plausible within the framework.)

(a) Low status, low deference

• A low-valued person will find that others rarely defer to them or treat them as an authority.

• Because people expect deference to follow coalitional value (and punish or penalize those who don’t defer), those low in value may also be punished or socially penalized for attempting to assert authority. 

• Sometimes, to compensate, they may resort to dominance tactics (coercion, threats, intimidation) when they can’t legitimately claim deference on merit. (In CVT, this is a kind of mismatch: seeking status beyond what one’s coalitional value justifies.) 

(b) Self‐esteem, subjective feelings, and internal monitoring

• Because people’s self-esteem is posited to partly track signals of social acceptance and coalitional value, persistent low value might lead to chronically lower self-esteem or shame.

• The individual may become hypervigilant to cues of acceptance, rejection, or comparison with more valued individuals, searching for ways to redeem value.

(c) Social marginalization, reduced cooperation, exclusion

• Others may exclude, ignore, or sideline low-value people in collective tasks, group decisions, or alliances.

• Their access to coalition benefits (resources, mutual aid, social support, mating opportunities) may decline.

(d) Efforts to “improve” coalitional value or to signal value

• To escape low value status, the person may try to acquire new competencies, skills, or affiliations that are valued by the coalition.

• They may engage in signaling (perhaps exaggerated or costly signaling) to show loyalty, competence, trustworthiness, or group commitment.

• They might align with subcoalitions or seek niche roles where competition is less intense so they can appear more valuable.

(e) Psychological stress, resentment, and ideological compensations

• Being low valued may create internal tension, envy, or resentment toward higher-valued individuals or subgroups.

• One coping strategy may be ideological: constructing narratives or moral frameworks that elevate low-value traits (e.g. emphasizing intellectual, moral, spiritual value over physical or institutional value) so as to shift the criterion of value. Winegard argues that some ideological conflicts may stem from such status‐strategy redefinitions.

• Alternatively, low coalitional value people might adopt a “victim” narrative or moral prestige stance (claiming moral superiority) to gain deference or sympathy not via utility but via moral credit.

(f) Role of context: some “losers” in one coalition might be valued in another

• Because coalitional value is context‐sensitive, a person who is low value in one coalition (say, a physically competitive group) might be higher value in another coalition (e.g. intellectual, artistic, caregiving).

• Thus, labeling someone as a “loser” is not absolute; it is relational and contingent.

---

Caveats, complexity, and limits

It’s important not to oversimplify or moralize too much. Some points of caution:

• Perceptions vs reality: Coalitional value is partly subjective — people might misjudge or misperceive someone’s real contributions. Someone might be undervalued due to prejudice, signaling failures, or biases.

• Non-zero contributions: Being “low value” does not mean “zero value” — most people have at least some utility in coalitions.

• Tradeoffs: A trait beneficial in one coalition might be costly in another (e.g. risk taking, confrontation).

• Dominance vs prestige: Some low-value individuals may temporarily obtain status through coercion or intimidation (dominance), but that is less stable and more costly than status gained by genuine value.

• Cultural and institutional shifts: In modern societies, institutional, legal, or ideological systems can override or reshape coalitional value assessments (e.g. meritocratic systems, equality norms).

• Moral and ethical dimensions: We shouldn’t equate “low coalitional value” with moral worth; CVT is a descriptive model, not a normative or moral theory."