The reason I'm pressing this point is because I feel this is the exact issue that would be useful for the outside world and beyond the scope of having a title for reasons like recognition/reputation, economic motives or as a precondition for certain functions within the group (I assume that's also the case, but it's not been mentioned so far). In short, it's something all of us could benefit from. I was/am kind of hoping that if we peel off the different motives, layers and aspects of this system of titles, we get to a couple of things that could be useful beyond the ecosystem of the RPS itself.
How so? How could/would this change our lives or behaviour?
The first paragraph of post #39 really says it all. Towit: The titles/levels are formal peer recognition by a bonifide and well-respected professional society of a history of a member's knowledge and excellence. Nothing more; nothing less. In publishing terms it's like the difference between a formal peer-reviewed journal, published book/magazine, and random web site or forum posting. It speaks to credibility, although there are exceptions in all of the afore mentioned situations. But in general, those titles reflect the acknowledged credibility of those who have been awarded the title. That is the usefulness beyond "the ecosysystem of RPS itself" and has been so for at least a century. It really is that simple.
To me, those titles basically give me confidence that the writer is qualified to have a a valid opinion, recommendation, and position in discussions/debates within their knowledge areas. Not always one that I personally choose to follow, but a valid one that's worth considering nonethless. And to me, all of the levels inspire that confidence. Perhaps the difference between the levels means more to those who hold them but not so much to me. The all are essentially formal peer verification of professional competence.
Having participated in several professional societies throughout my career, ranging from basic wet-behond-the-ear member to leadership and sponsorship positions, I've noticed that they are interesting in how they are received, both internally and externally. Some folks crave the camaraderie and education of professional associations, some crave the information the associations provide, and others crave the opportunity to promote through the ranks. The personal motivations aren't really of much interest as they are very varied. But there are trends, which really don't matter much. And just as much, there are folks who do not share those predilictions; Some are quite vocal about their disinterest or skepticism; others just go about their business quietly.
But I'm totally puzzled. You seem to have received answers to your questions yet poke that "there's something more". Perhaps both sides of the discussion is at a bit of a point of frustrations because it seems a lot like when a child repeatedly asking "why?" to questions that we think/know are already well known and well explained. Anyone who has children knows that frustration...
Perhaps this discussion has begun and is ending with "drama" too.
