Part 7: Cyclic symbols

In my last post I outlined a system for understanding our relationships to symbols. There is unconscious association (Level 1), where the symbol and substance seem to be the same thing. Then there’s conscious evaluation (Level 2), where we recognize the symbol is only a symbol, and we make our best judgment of how well it corresponds to the substance. And finally there’s manipulation (Level 3), where we notice which levels other people are on, and we alter which symbols we show to influence their beliefs.

There’s a weird kind of phenomenon that happens when people use easy-to-fake symbols to try to deceive each other: the symbols become cyclic in their meaning. They flip to mean the opposite of what they once meant, and then they flip back again.

The Level 2 cycle

In the last post I named deceptive speech as an example of symbol manipulation:

Against Levels 1 and 2A, you use words whose meaning reflects the opposite of what’s true (you say, “I didn’t eat the cookies, Bob did”). Or, you withhold words whose meanings would have reflected the truth (you don’t confess to eating the cookies).

Against Level 2C, you use words whose meaning reflects the truth, knowing that your listener will think you’re lying (you say, “Sure! Of course I ate those cookies lol”). Or, you withhold words whose meaning was false, knowing that they would’ve inspired skepticism in your listener and actually driven them closer to the truth (you don’t accuse Bob of eating the cookies, because then you’ll look even more suspicious).

The examples there got a bit complicated, and we could imagine them getting even more complicated. When the listener finds out they’ve been deceived, they’ll come to a conclusion like, “This speaker lies.” So then, when the speaker starts telling the truth in response, the listener will be deceived again, and then they’ll come to a conclusion like, “The speaker is truthful now.” We can imagine a repeating cycle of moves and counter-moves as one keeps trying to deceive and the other keeps trying to discern.

In reality, this cycle doesn’t happen too often with actual speech, because the speaker fears the social consequences of being caught repeatedly lying, and the listener will get fed up and end the relationship. We do see the cyclic effect with other symbols, though—it seems to help when the audience is more than just one person. We see styles of clothing that go in and out of fashion in a cycle—once everybody wears it, it doesn’t symbolize anything interesting anymore: better stop wearing it. Once nobody’s wearing it, it’s avant-garde and cool: better wear it. We’ve seen it with Star Wars fandom, with political orientations across generations, with diet fads, with video game art styles, etc. Once everybody’s doing it (or the wrong group is doing it), it doesn’t symbolize anything interesting anymore: better stop doing it. Because that would be interesting. Scott Alexander covered this phenomenon in Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism, and you’ll find more fleshed-out examples there. I’ll add my own example below, and I’ll show how it can be understood through the lens of that simple three-level system I described, because I think it helps a lot in keeping track of things.

Example: Smerdyakov and the envelope

I ended Part 1 with an anecdote from history. Here’s an anecdote from literature. This one odd excerpt from a book I read two years ago helped me to eventually identify and flesh out these ideas.

In the fourth Part of the classic novel The Brothers Karamazov (SOME SPOILERS), there’s been a murder and a robbery of cash. The character Smerdyakov is one of the suspects—he lives in the building where the crime occurred. At the scene of the crime is found a torn envelope, which Smerdyakov alone had seen the victim fill with money the day before. Now, the money is gone and victim is dead. And now, due to other details we don’t need to cover, a different suspect sits on trial for the murder. Of course, if it can be proven that Smerdyakov committed the crime, our main suspect will go free.

The prosecutor (of our main suspect, arguing for Smerdyakov’s innocence) remarks that Smerdyakov could not have committed the crime—if he had, he wouldn’t have opened the envelope at the scene, he’d just take it, already knowing what was inside of it. On the other hand, our main suspect wouldn’t know for certain that the money was in that envelope—he’d have to tear it open to check, and then he’d leave hastily because he had no alibi for being in that area.

So, let’s pause; do you see what’s being established here? An envelope that only Smerdyakov knew about was criminally opened and emptied: on its face, it connects Smerdyakov to the crime (level 2A—conscious association). But if Smerdyakov knew its contents, he wouldn’t have any reason to open it right there at the crime scene. Since it was opened there, he must not have committed the crime. So the prosecutor nudges us to level 2C—the fact that Smerdyakov originally knew about the envelope implies inverse-association to the crime!

Then the defense attorney speaks. He accuses Smerdyakov of planning for us to take that line of reasoning; he left the envelope on purpose, to frame the other suspect!

So there’s the renewal of our cycle. The prosecutor had concluded that the abandoned envelope implied (or symbolized) Smerdyakov’s innocence. But if that were true, and if a guilty Smerdyakov knew it was true, then he would’ve left the letter on purpose (Level 3) to hide his guilt! And so the defense attorney brings us back to 2A: the letter implies Smerdyakov’s guilt.

And if Smerdyakov were guilty and he knew the defense attorney would make that argument, then maybe he should have taken the letter after all! And so on…

And, having gone back and forth a couple times, perhaps we’d find ourselves in 2B, unconvinced either way, because the symbols can easily be faked either way. To solve situations like this in real life, we depend on other details.

Advice: Keep cycling

Sometimes we change our evaluation of symbols (moving around on Level 2) in a way that feels final, but shouldn’t.

For example, we might read a study that says, “The nouveau riche are eager to flaunt their wealth, and often surround themselves with expensive luxury items. Those with old money are more understated, preferring not to waste money on such frivolities.” And then we think, “Aha! Now I know who the real wealthy people are—it’s not the people flaunting expensive luxury items.” Or, we might notice that knowledgeable investors who give good investing advice aren’t usually attractive and charismatic—they’re old and out of shape and dorky. So we think, “Aha! Now I know how to screen for actual competent investors.” If those conclusions are true, then in the short term we’ve adjusted our expectations and we’re less likely to be fooled by wealth-poseurs or bad investment advice.

But if those are judgments that anyone would make once exposed to enough examples, then it’s only a matter of time before more people do make those judgments and adjust their expectations. And then it’s only a matter of time before the signalers adapt: the not-quite-rich will present themselves in a more understated way, and those with scammy investing advice will find old, stuffy looking people to pitch it to the masses. It won’t happen tomorrow, but if that’s the way the symbols are going—if 2C is the correct reading of a particular symbol—then eventually the signalers will adapt by signaling the opposite.

Nassim Taleb seems to overlook this in his post Surgeons Should Not Look Like Surgeons. To summarize his point: A person whose outward presentation is awkward, unusual, or incomprehensible for their position is more likely to be competent in that position. It must be their competence, Taleb reasons, that got them to where they are today, because they clearly got no help from the symbols they’re displaying. Now, I’m sure there are at least some professions for which this is currently true, but Taleb’s alleged insight is only a temporary move. What will he say when more surgeons start to fashion themselves as weird savants instead of refined professionals? If Taleb is right about surgeons, then eventually everyone will start thinking that way, and eventually surgeons who wish to appear competent will adapt.

And then it’ll be our job as Level-2 discerners to adapt again. It’s our job as discerners to stay ahead of the cycle at all times—that’s how we avoid being deceived. That’s what it means to avoid being deceived.

–pdf