If you look at the link you posted it argues:

Status is a confusing term, unless it’s understood as something one does. You may be low in status, but play high, and vice versa. … We always like it when a tramp is mistaken for the boss, or the boss for a tramp. … I should really talk about dominance and submission, but I’d create a resistance.

That means that dominance and submission map more directly to the territory than status does.

The author doesn't argue that people care about mutually reinforcement of each other status as being high but that people also consciously make moves to submit and place themselves at a low status position.

The text invalidates your idea that people engage primarily in social interaction to maximize the amount of status.

You don't pick that up if you make the error of not treating status as a model but as reality. Reality is complex. Models simplify reality. Sometimes the simplification keeps the essential elements of what you want to describe. Other times it doesn't.

I will consider it a typo, assuming you meant neurotypicals like I did i.e. people outside the autism spectrum, or in other words non-geeks.

Yes, it's a typo likely because my spellchecker didn't know "neurotypicals".