And I'm an Empress! And msbelle is the nicest!

people who have supposedly expended large amounts of social capital in one incident or another have not (that I've seen) had their standing raised or lowered permanently, or significantly changed others opinions of them

I had social capital explained differently to me once upon a time, and it has been immeasureably helpful to me, so I'm gonna share.

X ,Y and Z are friends. They do things for one another all the time. Every time X does something for Y and Z, he's depositing into his bank account with each of them. It goes the same for Y and Z. Then Y and Z have a little spat. They each let it go, though, because they've done so much with/for one another over the years that it just doesn't stack up against the capital they've got deposited with one another.

And then X goes crazy. That damned X went off his rocker and he does something really bad. He apologizes the next day, though, and Y and Z let it go. And they let the next thing go, and the next thing go, and so on, until one day, Z realizes that he's done, fed up, tired of it. There's no more capital. The good that X has done over the years no longer outweighs the crazy. Z drops out of the relationship with X. X apologizes to Y, says he's over that, he's back. That gains him a little capital again, or maybe Y's just a little more long-suffering, and the two stay friends for awhile... and then one day, X sneaks in and shaves her cats.

And it's all over.

One, two, even ten incidents over the course of a relationship are pretty much covered by interest. The value of the relationship doesn't go markedly up or down. It's not until the relationship hurts more than it heals that you notice measurable differences; that leads to Y and Z cutting the ties. That line is in a different place for everyone.

I hope no one is annoyed by this explanation. The idea of social capital bugged me when I first heard of it, but when it was explained to me like this, I found it a handy construct for thinking about the way the world works. It also helped me let go more easily, be more like Z than Y. It's not my fault X went crazy. I gave X lots of chances. It's okay to let go because X is hurting me and that's not okay.

Huh. I think you (edit: you = Jesse)might be saying what I'm kind of trying to say, but different, and not at all really.

The problem with the social capital concept is, as you point out, that it's not uniform. A particular incident will not only not cause people to react in equal ways, it will not cause people to react in equal amounts.You've had posts cause you to change your opinions about posters significantly. Those same posts may not have even registered for somebody else.

Social capital is useful as a descriptor, but it loses efficiency because there can't be a set value on it.

Thanks, Deena. It does help to reinforce that it's a way of describing normal, healthy give and take, not advocating for a Reign of Heathers.

I'm bugged by the cat-shaving. Because shaved cats can be some fugly animals.

The problem with the social capital concept is, as you point out, that it's not uniform.

That's not a problem. As noted way upthread, the point is that it isn't uniform. Your social capital bank with me is different than it is with Kristin, because I've spent more time with you, and I've seen you drive people to the airport at 5:30 in the morning.

I'm bugged by the cat-shaving. Because shaved cats can be some fugly animals.

Shaved maybe, but naturally hairless I've grown to like from the Sphinx cat in the Mission bookstore.

and, really, all I know about Sean is that he eats food out of tubes. I mean, ewww.

(Robin, I was pretty upset with X myself. Not that it actually happened. Because it didn't.)

but that nobody called her on it.

I would also like to point out that this is not entirely accurate.

I'm bugged by the cat-shaving. Because shaved cats can be some fugly animals.

I once lived next to a guy who raised Mexican Hairless dogs.

Poster pups for fugly, poor things.