Very interesting read, I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!
One idea that crossed my mind while reading is the role that authenticity plays with regard to status and illegibility. It seems that the power offered by typing someone and making them legible is at its greatest when that person is "pretending" to be that type, or taking inauthentic actions so as to try and be someone they are not. You do not "gain any power" over the man who is actually, authentically into spirituality when you type him into the framework shared above (though the existence of that framework may affect how people think of him at first glance); nor does the high school photographer who actually, authentically enjoys taking pictures of fences feel much embarrassment when typed as above. However, both the man who is into spirituality as a path to sex and the high school photographer who takes pictures of fences to be "cool" have much to lose by being typed / becoming legible. Legibility seems to matter most when people are playing pretend, as seeing through the act means you also know they are a person who pretends (following the types of others), rather than choosing their own unique path.
It seems being authentic may offer a potential path out of this "ecosystem in which people are ever on the run from their peers"; the associations in the background lose much of their power if your type is simply you, rather than an act. That being said, the line between being "you" and "pretending" can be a blurry one, due to the heavy influence of environment and culture on who we become. Being "you" is not always straightforward, and even with self-reflection it can be hard to parse out ("am I into spirituality just for the sex?" can be a hard question to answer unbiasedly).
That's a very interesting question of how you can be certain that you are being authentic, and what your real motivations are.... and I think you're onto something true there about types having more power in cases of inauthenticity.
Natural Hazard has an insightful section on what being typed is like in the moment experientially that I think gets at why this might be true:
"What I find wild about this example is how all the judgement exists implicitly in (potentially) shared context. All that's in the meme itself are the symbols you need to perform the recognition of the Type. It doesn't tell you what the author thinks of the Type. […] And yet, despite the lack of explicit judgement, this meme still feels like it exerts some pressure. […] You find this meme, what are you thinking/feeling? It's the same feeling as if you looked up from your laptop at a coffee shop and everyone was staring at you. You may have no idea why they're staring or what they think of you, but you know it's not good."
For the inauthentic person, this looking up and seeing everyone staring at you exerts more pressure, because they have something to hide and are afraid of being exposed; and it takes advantage of whatever core insecurities they have that drive them to be inauthentic in the first place. Whereas the authentic person stands on firm(er) ground.
But I do think these things have effects even if you are authentic... as you point out, they influence how others think of you, if in ways that in many cases can be overcome by further knowledge and familiarity. I think in response to this problem, a norm has emerged to ignore this / 'stay above it' / pretend it's not important, an attempt to make it so by force of will and collective agreement. But I think this is ultimately just a cope that only goes so far to limit the negative effects, and that the influence on how others think of you unfortunately has real and significant consequences.
I'm hoping to make the case in this series that seeing past the type for the underlying reality is becoming an ever heavier lift, and that a result is increasing social dysfunction, loneliness, and isolation.
I like that way of framing things, and agree with you that while the authentic person may stand on firmer ground, they still aren't fully out of the woods. Excited to see what the rest of the series brings!
I really like how you have boiled down culture to some general principles. They were not immediately obvious to me - but after pondering them your three laws make a lot of sense, and are quite useful for thinking about how culture evolves.
Were there any blog posts / books / other forms of media that strongly influenced this work? I'd like some more background to read on this series.
I honestly avoided reading too much about what other people thought about this subject in particular because I didn't want other's ideas to overwrite the theories I was developing over the years... but that post I linked by Natural Hazard covers some similar ideas
I will think more about my general influences and give you a better answer...
This is some great analysis! Just wanted to drop in a thought that the legibility/illegibility distinction strikes me as sort of analogous to coherence/decoherence in quantum mechanics, whereby entanglement in a system implies simultaneously shaping and being shaped by the system (coherence) until something outside of the system interferes and decoheres the system. The attempt by individuals to become illegible by the group would seem to rely on active entanglement in other groups. Given the mention of 'Mechanics' here, 'entanglement' in your Mind Games post, and 'non-locality' in your Acceleration post, you might be onto some of the quantum mind/social science ideas that folks like Alexander Wendt has been advocating for..
i will have to think on this... its been a while since i took physics but i always did find useful metaphors and analogies from the sciences to apply to other domains
Very interesting read, I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!
One idea that crossed my mind while reading is the role that authenticity plays with regard to status and illegibility. It seems that the power offered by typing someone and making them legible is at its greatest when that person is "pretending" to be that type, or taking inauthentic actions so as to try and be someone they are not. You do not "gain any power" over the man who is actually, authentically into spirituality when you type him into the framework shared above (though the existence of that framework may affect how people think of him at first glance); nor does the high school photographer who actually, authentically enjoys taking pictures of fences feel much embarrassment when typed as above. However, both the man who is into spirituality as a path to sex and the high school photographer who takes pictures of fences to be "cool" have much to lose by being typed / becoming legible. Legibility seems to matter most when people are playing pretend, as seeing through the act means you also know they are a person who pretends (following the types of others), rather than choosing their own unique path.
It seems being authentic may offer a potential path out of this "ecosystem in which people are ever on the run from their peers"; the associations in the background lose much of their power if your type is simply you, rather than an act. That being said, the line between being "you" and "pretending" can be a blurry one, due to the heavy influence of environment and culture on who we become. Being "you" is not always straightforward, and even with self-reflection it can be hard to parse out ("am I into spirituality just for the sex?" can be a hard question to answer unbiasedly).
Meese, thanks man, and interesting discussion
That's a very interesting question of how you can be certain that you are being authentic, and what your real motivations are.... and I think you're onto something true there about types having more power in cases of inauthenticity.
Natural Hazard has an insightful section on what being typed is like in the moment experientially that I think gets at why this might be true:
"What I find wild about this example is how all the judgement exists implicitly in (potentially) shared context. All that's in the meme itself are the symbols you need to perform the recognition of the Type. It doesn't tell you what the author thinks of the Type. […] And yet, despite the lack of explicit judgement, this meme still feels like it exerts some pressure. […] You find this meme, what are you thinking/feeling? It's the same feeling as if you looked up from your laptop at a coffee shop and everyone was staring at you. You may have no idea why they're staring or what they think of you, but you know it's not good."
For the inauthentic person, this looking up and seeing everyone staring at you exerts more pressure, because they have something to hide and are afraid of being exposed; and it takes advantage of whatever core insecurities they have that drive them to be inauthentic in the first place. Whereas the authentic person stands on firm(er) ground.
But I do think these things have effects even if you are authentic... as you point out, they influence how others think of you, if in ways that in many cases can be overcome by further knowledge and familiarity. I think in response to this problem, a norm has emerged to ignore this / 'stay above it' / pretend it's not important, an attempt to make it so by force of will and collective agreement. But I think this is ultimately just a cope that only goes so far to limit the negative effects, and that the influence on how others think of you unfortunately has real and significant consequences.
I'm hoping to make the case in this series that seeing past the type for the underlying reality is becoming an ever heavier lift, and that a result is increasing social dysfunction, loneliness, and isolation.
But I do feel there are ways out...
I like that way of framing things, and agree with you that while the authentic person may stand on firmer ground, they still aren't fully out of the woods. Excited to see what the rest of the series brings!
I really like how you have boiled down culture to some general principles. They were not immediately obvious to me - but after pondering them your three laws make a lot of sense, and are quite useful for thinking about how culture evolves.
Were there any blog posts / books / other forms of media that strongly influenced this work? I'd like some more background to read on this series.
thanks so much, I love to hear that
I honestly avoided reading too much about what other people thought about this subject in particular because I didn't want other's ideas to overwrite the theories I was developing over the years... but that post I linked by Natural Hazard covers some similar ideas
I will think more about my general influences and give you a better answer...
This is some great analysis! Just wanted to drop in a thought that the legibility/illegibility distinction strikes me as sort of analogous to coherence/decoherence in quantum mechanics, whereby entanglement in a system implies simultaneously shaping and being shaped by the system (coherence) until something outside of the system interferes and decoheres the system. The attempt by individuals to become illegible by the group would seem to rely on active entanglement in other groups. Given the mention of 'Mechanics' here, 'entanglement' in your Mind Games post, and 'non-locality' in your Acceleration post, you might be onto some of the quantum mind/social science ideas that folks like Alexander Wendt has been advocating for..
i will have to think on this... its been a while since i took physics but i always did find useful metaphors and analogies from the sciences to apply to other domains
thanks 🙏🏻