That’s an interesting question! I think it’s instructive to consider the information environment of a medieval peasant. Let’s speculate that they interact with a max ~150 people, almost all of which are other peasants (and illiterate). Everyone lives in the same place and undertakes a similar set of tasks throughout their life. What shared meanings are generated by this society? Surely it is a really intense filter bubble, with a thick culture into which little outside influence can penetrate? The Dothraki from Game of Thrones have a great line – ‘It is known’ – which they use to affirm something widely understood. This is a ritual rather than an explanation, because everyone within the culture already knows the meaning of whatever it is that has been said.
Comparing this to modern society, one of the biggest differences is the firehose of information we constantly consume, which is unique for each person. More than this, because it is global, the same information gets consumed in different contexts by different people (e.g. your reference to Gangnam Style). I think this leads to a kind of a hierarchical structure. On the one hand, we also have filter bubbles, which are getting more bespoke and personalised every year, and can lead to neighbours in possession of wildly different world models. On the other, unlike the peasants, we have to regularly coordinate and interact with people outside our bubbles. So you get this high-level set of Schelling points people coalesce around, like fashions and conventions, that allow us to have meaningful interactions with people we don’t know very well, but often only to a shallow depth. This sometimes looks like a drab monoculture. Then there is a lot in-between: little pockets of thicker shared meaning generated by families, sub-cultures, organisations etc, the coherence of which constantly have to be reaffirmed to survive the information firehose.
In sum, I think this cashes out as lots of thin shared meanings underpinning massive diversity, albeit in a highly complex structure. Although, I should caveat this with the fact that I would probably struggle to recognise our more deeply held shared meanings, in the whole fish recognising water sense.
Thanks for the prompt reply, I’m going to add one last thing to this discussion:
“I should caveat this with the fact that I would probably struggle to recognise our more deeply held shared meanings, in the whole fish-recognising-water sense.”
Aha, this is where I think human language limits us, since it’s our secondary nature to make assumptions and pre-judgements (to keep conversations going) that fit in neatly with mass-accepted beliefs or “Schelling points,” as you referenced. Making too many assumptions can hurt deeper connection, I fear, because stereotypes—although holding some level of truth—hold condensed representations that dehumanise and treat labels like caricatures. Think, for example, of any modern or old identity label: gay, polyamorous, conservative, female, etc. As their meanings drift through time, so will their collective connotations held by different groups of people, because every single word I mentioned has had unique meanings and ‘caricatures’ in the past and will continue to evolve in meaning. In linguistics, I think this is called semantic drift—such as semantic weakening and bleaching—though take my words with a grain of salt. I’m no linguistics grad (at least not yet ;) ).
I do wonder how the future is going to progress, because I fear we will eventually return to our primitive, cave-like bubbles, and society will eventually fracture into many smaller ones. Perhaps I’m too much of a cynic, but this “shallow” shared meaning, as you said, will break down. Because let’s face it—how long do collective shared ideas stay locked in place and last? They usually break down, and I do think, with the modern day and age, the only two possibilities that I see are either a return to or a rise in one united dogmatic institution (example: the Catholic Church) or the complete opposite—anarchy—because “neighbours in possession of wildly different world models” is terrible politically for the health and progress of society, in my opinion.
Other than that, much thanks for your response, and I do agree with you—it all boils down to us interacting with more people with different mindsets and beliefs today (tolerance and liberalism can take their credits here). But overall, I do think the specialisation of information will have an effect on society as a whole, especially with the rise of AI, which is more likely to give personalised and uniquely catered responses to an individual based on what they want to see and hear (preach to the choir, essentially). I mean, just look at the new Grok update—it’s literally shelling out Musk’s pseudoscience :(
All in all, the real question is whether this model of understanding sticks with us because it helps us deal with the barrage or “firehose” of information daily by personalising it, or if it tears us apart more and creates further divisions in society till it tears apart due to a lack of common ground and shared understandings.
I must admit I am a little pessimistic, and consider the anarchy side of the equation much more likely than consolidation. Modern society as a bunch of protocols is effective at managing diversity at scale, but it was built in a different age. You could only diverge so far from your neighbours, because who else did you talk to? With the internet and now AI, the production process of shared meaning is shifting in a fundamental way, and I’m not sure where it leads.
That’s an interesting question! I think it’s instructive to consider the information environment of a medieval peasant. Let’s speculate that they interact with a max ~150 people, almost all of which are other peasants (and illiterate). Everyone lives in the same place and undertakes a similar set of tasks throughout their life. What shared meanings are generated by this society? Surely it is a really intense filter bubble, with a thick culture into which little outside influence can penetrate? The Dothraki from Game of Thrones have a great line – ‘It is known’ – which they use to affirm something widely understood. This is a ritual rather than an explanation, because everyone within the culture already knows the meaning of whatever it is that has been said.
Comparing this to modern society, one of the biggest differences is the firehose of information we constantly consume, which is unique for each person. More than this, because it is global, the same information gets consumed in different contexts by different people (e.g. your reference to Gangnam Style). I think this leads to a kind of a hierarchical structure. On the one hand, we also have filter bubbles, which are getting more bespoke and personalised every year, and can lead to neighbours in possession of wildly different world models. On the other, unlike the peasants, we have to regularly coordinate and interact with people outside our bubbles. So you get this high-level set of Schelling points people coalesce around, like fashions and conventions, that allow us to have meaningful interactions with people we don’t know very well, but often only to a shallow depth. This sometimes looks like a drab monoculture. Then there is a lot in-between: little pockets of thicker shared meaning generated by families, sub-cultures, organisations etc, the coherence of which constantly have to be reaffirmed to survive the information firehose.
In sum, I think this cashes out as lots of thin shared meanings underpinning massive diversity, albeit in a highly complex structure. Although, I should caveat this with the fact that I would probably struggle to recognise our more deeply held shared meanings, in the whole fish recognising water sense.
Thanks for the prompt reply, I’m going to add one last thing to this discussion:
“I should caveat this with the fact that I would probably struggle to recognise our more deeply held shared meanings, in the whole fish-recognising-water sense.”
Aha, this is where I think human language limits us, since it’s our secondary nature to make assumptions and pre-judgements (to keep conversations going) that fit in neatly with mass-accepted beliefs or “Schelling points,” as you referenced. Making too many assumptions can hurt deeper connection, I fear, because stereotypes—although holding some level of truth—hold condensed representations that dehumanise and treat labels like caricatures. Think, for example, of any modern or old identity label: gay, polyamorous, conservative, female, etc. As their meanings drift through time, so will their collective connotations held by different groups of people, because every single word I mentioned has had unique meanings and ‘caricatures’ in the past and will continue to evolve in meaning. In linguistics, I think this is called semantic drift—such as semantic weakening and bleaching—though take my words with a grain of salt. I’m no linguistics grad (at least not yet ;) ).
I do wonder how the future is going to progress, because I fear we will eventually return to our primitive, cave-like bubbles, and society will eventually fracture into many smaller ones. Perhaps I’m too much of a cynic, but this “shallow” shared meaning, as you said, will break down. Because let’s face it—how long do collective shared ideas stay locked in place and last? They usually break down, and I do think, with the modern day and age, the only two possibilities that I see are either a return to or a rise in one united dogmatic institution (example: the Catholic Church) or the complete opposite—anarchy—because “neighbours in possession of wildly different world models” is terrible politically for the health and progress of society, in my opinion.
Other than that, much thanks for your response, and I do agree with you—it all boils down to us interacting with more people with different mindsets and beliefs today (tolerance and liberalism can take their credits here). But overall, I do think the specialisation of information will have an effect on society as a whole, especially with the rise of AI, which is more likely to give personalised and uniquely catered responses to an individual based on what they want to see and hear (preach to the choir, essentially). I mean, just look at the new Grok update—it’s literally shelling out Musk’s pseudoscience :(
All in all, the real question is whether this model of understanding sticks with us because it helps us deal with the barrage or “firehose” of information daily by personalising it, or if it tears us apart more and creates further divisions in society till it tears apart due to a lack of common ground and shared understandings.
Hazel.
I must admit I am a little pessimistic, and consider the anarchy side of the equation much more likely than consolidation. Modern society as a bunch of protocols is effective at managing diversity at scale, but it was built in a different age. You could only diverge so far from your neighbours, because who else did you talk to? With the internet and now AI, the production process of shared meaning is shifting in a fundamental way, and I’m not sure where it leads.