Part 6: Degrees of understanding

We know a few things about symbols and substance now, don’t we? We’ve noticed that we live in a world of symbols; we’ve noticed it’s easy to commit surrogation, where we mistake the symbol for its substance; we know that there are three main ways of dealing with surrogation; we’ve noticed that words are symbols and that this presents its own unique issues; we’ve noticed that despite these issues, we must rely on symbols to practically navigate the world; and we’ve noticed that we can benefit from occasionally trying to free ourselves from this reliance.

This post presents a model for understanding the different ways that people can relate to symbols and their substance. Back in Part 2, I mentioned that, apart from surrogating on symbols, we can use them as symbols, for the indirect benefits we’ll receive from our audience—this post speaks more to that idea.

The three-level model

There’s a distinction between the symbol and the substance, and we can think of ourselves as having different degrees of awareness of this distinction. It’s a set of levels that can exist for any symbol/substance pairing—so you could be on a low level for one pair (like sportscar -> wealth) and a high level for another pair (like salad -> healthy eating). I’m going to use several examples of each level to help illustrate what they mean.

I don’t think that any of the information here will come as shocking new facts to anyone. Rather, I’m taking daily occurrences that we’re all familiar with and framing them in this organized system. What I’m aiming to show here is that we can use what we’ve learned about symbols and substance to understand many many different things—hopefully better than we understood them before. Let’s get into it:

Level 1: Unconscious association

This is where you’re liable to commit surrogation. You haven’t noticed that the symbol is not the substance—you’ve unconsciously drawn a connection between them, but you’re unaware that they’re two different things. The examples here are just more example of surrogation:

• You just have a feeling that this office where you’re interviewing must be a relaxed, casual place to work. In reality it’s because you saw the beanbag chairs laid about, and you associate that with “relaxed/casual.”
• You learn that you can actually, barely afford a sportscar, and you feel like buying it would be a logical step toward reaching your ideal lifestyle. In reality it’s because you associate sportscars with wealth.
• You have a feeling that the politician campaigning in your town is a down-to-earth, relatable guy. In reality it’s because he rolled up his sleeves while giving the speech, and you associate that with hard work and humility.

A caveat: in many cases, the symbol and substance actually are tightly correlated, so there’s no harm in thinking of them as the same thing. For example:

• Ordinary speech: Most words in everyday speech have strict definitions that people adhere to. When you hear, “I like elephants” and think of a large gray mammal with a trunk, there’s really no need to be aware that the world “elephant” is just a symbol for that large gray thing. In fact, consciously thinking about it would slow you down.

But as we’ve seen, other symbols are not so tightly correlated with their substance—dressing like a skater vs. being good at skateboarding. When someone is stuck at Level 1 for symbols that don’t reliably indicate their substance, we call that being naïve.

These situations are by definition hard to spot, as they are unconscious. As soon as you notice you’re committing surrogation (or just that it’s possible to commit surrogation) in a particular situation, you move on to Level 2.

Level 2: Conscious evaluation

This is where you consciously realize that the symbol is not the substance: they are only correlated. Or, perhaps they’re not so tightly correlated at all. Some symbols are, and some aren’t. You use your own judgment to predict: “Seeing this symbol here, how likely is it that the substance will manifest as expected?” You’d consider things like how common the symbol is, how many alternate meanings it could have, how easy it is to fake, the incentives for faking it, the consequences of getting caught, etc.

“Likely,” “unlikely,” “most likely,” “most unlikely”… there’s a continuous spectrum of evidentiary weight you could put on a symbol, but for the sake of simplicity and easy examples, I’ll break this spectrum into three zones:

2A: Conscious association

You know the symbol is not the substance, but nevertheless you believe that the symbol, as people are using it today, happens to be a good indicator of the substance. You’ve judged that it’s uncommon for someone to fake the symbol or use it with a different meaning in mind, so you trust it for the most part.

• You notice that a person you’ve just met says, “right, right” while you’re explaining something to them—that’s a symbol for active listening. You assume they’re listening. For a split second, you suppose that they could just be daydreaming while absentmindedly trying to reassure you they’re listening… but that would be risky, you think, and not many people would do it.
• A colleague has a mathematics degree from Harvard. You assume they’re good at math. At some point, perhaps when they make an embarrassing mistake, you suppose that they could have cheated in school… but that would be risky, and systems have been designed to prevent it, so you don’t think it’s likely.
• Examined speech: When you’re listening to someone you don’t fully trust or don’t easily understand, you tend to consciously think about each word of their speech and wonder what alternate meanings might be behind it.

2B: Conscious dissociation

You know the symbol is not the substance, and you believe the symbol could easily be faked or used with a different meaning. So, it’s not a very good indicator of the substance. You’re indifferent to the symbol. Might the substance be there anyway? That’ll depend on its prior probability—based on all the other contextual details.

• Your neighbor bought a sportscar, but you know that most Americans can find a way to buy a sportscar if they really want to. From the other details you know about his life, it doesn’t seem likely that he’s very wealthy.
• Having seen beanbag chairs at the office where you’re interviewing, you think, “They might be relaxed and casual, or they might’ve just put those there to convince newcomers that they are.” From the other details you know about this industry, you don’t think it’s likely that they’re a very relaxed/casual place to work.
• A person you’ve just met has a dog that they treat really well. That could be seen as a symbol for general empathy/kindness. But you don’t think it’s a very reliable symbol for that—many different kinds of people love dogs. Didn’t Hitler love his dog?? As you get to know this person, you do become convinced that they’re in fact very empathetic, but the dog thing didn’t factor in very strongly.
• Nonsense speech: Obviously, if someone’s words aren’t fitting together according to the ordinary rules of language, you can’t guess any meaning from the words themselves. You could draw conclusions from the other details though, like their tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, etc.

2C: Conscious inverse-association

You know the symbol is not the substance, and now that you think about it, some symbols may actually imply the absence of the substance! They are anticorrelated!

• In Seattle (and probably other cities), many restaurants and bars feature an interior design that’s intentionally raw/industrial: exposed pipes; wood panels; drinks served in mason jars. The intention is to appear hip/underground/authentic/DIY. I’m sure at one time it was mostly quirky, interesting dive bars (filled with quirky, interesting people) that had these characteristics. But now, when you see every brand-new unremarkable restaurant doing the same thing, you start to view those design choices as indicative of a stale/mainstream/formulaic/corporate dining experience. It’s a common feeling among people I’ve talked to.
• A campaigning politician who rolls up his sleeves in a blue-collar town is assumed to be even more out of touch than if he’d just left his sleeves down. The audience thinks, “He’s trying so hard to relate to us; he must have something to hide.” (Should a Man Roll Up His Sleeves? (NYT))
• Phony speech: Any speech that goes “over the top” to symbolize something about the speaker. Notice that in all of these, the thing is never stated outright; rather it’s always meant to be signaled by the manner of speech.
  • Pseudo-intellectual speech: In Part 1, I remarked that those people who use unnecessarily complicated language in order to feel smart are committing surrogation. The people who identify them as pseudo-intellectuals are here on Level 2C. When the speaker gets too liberal with their thesaurus and it’s clear what they’re doing, we conclude that they’re less intelligent than if they’d just spoken plainly.
  • Overly nice speech: The honeyed words of NiceGuys make their listeners think they’re less kind/enjoyable/safe to meet than if they’d just spoken normally.
  • Overly brave/bragging speech: See r/iamverybadass.
• And, this is not a precise example, but I thought I’d point out that words like kitsch, gaudy, corny, stale, and sleazy all describe situations in which the symbols end up meaning the opposite of what was intended.

The first thing we might notice here: Why are people sending these anticorrelated symbols? Some of it is people on Level 1; unfortunately they’re not consciously aware that they’re signaling at all, so they can’t know that their signals are being received the wrong way. The rest are people attempting deception (Level 3, below).

The second thing we might notice: Anticorrelated symbols tend to have an expiration date—the senders of these symbols will realize that they’re having the opposite effect from expected. Eventually, hip-aspiring bars will have to take on a new design scheme. Eventually politicians will stop deliberately rolling up their sleeves. Eventually pseudo-intellectuals will grow tired of being ignored—even if they don’t realize that their speech is obnoxious signaling, perhaps someday they resort to copying the behavior of their better-liked peers, and this improves their situation (“somehow”), so they continue it. The signaling that actually works wins out.

Level 3: Manipulation

You’ve made some judgment about how well the symbol actually correlates to the substance; then, you notice the judgments others have made, and that you can use this to your advantage. At Level 3, you consider that some people are still on Level 1 for the symbol in question, and therefore could be convinced of things that aren’t true, through surrogation. Or, they’re at Level 2 but a bit closer to 2A than they should be, so a faked symbol will convince them more than it should. Or, they’re a bit closer to 2C than they should be, so avoiding displaying the symbol will convince them of the substance, more than it should. In any case, you could perform false symbol displays and convince people to think a certain way about you.

• A highly stressful company fills its office area with beanbag chairs in order to appear as a relaxed, casual place. It makes a positive impression on most interviewees.
• A savvy politician is feeling a bit hot onstage, but he doesn’t roll up his sleeves—he knows it would come across negatively, and he has to weigh this effect against personal comfort.
• A kid scrapes his knee on the playground but consciously avoids showing pain, so he’ll look tough in front of his friends.
• Deceptive speech: Probably the best example, and we can cover both cases:
  • 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).

Note: Obviously manipulating people is a moral consideration, and I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t do it. I’m only pointing out that it’s a game that can be played, and is being played every day in a billion different places. But you can still be on Level 3 without manipulating people; in fact, you can use your understanding of other people’s minds to prevent them from misunderstanding symbols.

Wrapping up

Is this a system worth thinking about? Is it useful sometimes, as we seek to understand the world and interact with other people, to frame things in terms of degrees of understanding symbols? We certainly don’t need it to go about our daily lives, but maybe we’ll notice things a little more sharply, and maybe that’ll help us do the things we want to do.

That goes for everything in this series. You don’t need to consciously think, “The symbol is not the substance” to avoid surrogation mistakes, but maybe it helps. You don’t need to think, “Culture shapes language which shapes concepts” to avoid living in a bubble, but maybe it helps. And you don’t need to think, “There are three degrees of understanding symbols” to better discern the social situations around you, but I do think it helps.

I’ve got an example of a social phenomenon that fits very nicely into the symbol/substance framing and three-level system above—and could get pretty murky without it. I was going to add it here to illustrate how the system as a whole could be used, but this post has gotten long enough. So there’ll be one more post in this series. I think it’ll be less heady and a bit more fun.

–pdf