Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Simulacra Levels and their Interactions, published by Zvi on the LessWrong. Previously: Covid-19: My Current Model, On Negative Feedback and Simulacra This post aims to unpack and explain simulacra levels of action using the threat of covid-19 as its central example. My intention is for future posts to then apply this model to many covid-related dynamics. In Elizabeth’s Negative Feedback and Simulacra, she examined several example situations on which information was being processed on multiple simulacra levels at once. On Negative Feedback and Simulacra was my take on those examples. To re-familiarize ourselves with the simulacra levels, here’s the introduction Elizabeth offered to them in her post: My friend Ben Hoffman talks about simulacra a lot, with this rough definition: First, words were used to maintain shared accounting. We described reality intersubjectively in order to build shared maps, the better to navigate our environment. I say that the food source is over there, so that our band can move towards or away from it when situationally appropriate, or so people can make other inferences based on this knowledge. 2. The breakdown of naive intersubjectivity – people start taking the shared map as an object to be manipulated, rather than part of their own subjectivity. For instance, I might say there’s a lion over somewhere where I know there’s food, in order to hoard access to that resource for idiosyncratic advantage. Thus, the map drifts from reality, and we start dissociating from the maps we make. 3. When maps drift far enough from reality, in some cases people aren’t even parsing it as though it had a literal specific objective meaning that grounds out in some verifiable external test outside of social reality. Instead, the map becomes a sort of command language for coordinating actions and feelings. “There’s food over there” is perhaps construed as a bid to move in that direction, and evaluated as though it were that call to action. Any argument for or against the implied call to action is conflated with an argument for or against the proposition literally asserted. This is how arguments become soldiers. Any attempt to simply investigate the literal truth of the proposition is considered at best naive and at worst politically irresponsible. But since this usage is parasitic on the old map structure that was meant to describe something outside the system of describers, language is still structured in terms of reification and objectivity, so it substantively resembles something with descriptive power, or “aboutness.” For instance, while you cannot acquire a physician’s privileges and social role simply by providing clear evidence of your ability to heal others, those privileges are still justified in terms of pseudo-consequentialist arguments about expertise in healing. 4. Finally, the pseudostructure itself becomes perceptible as an object that can be manipulated, the pseudocorrespondence breaks down, and all assertions are nothing but moves in an ever-shifting game where you’re trying to think a bit ahead of the others (for positional advantage), but not too far ahead. If that doesn’t make sense, try this anonymous comment on the post Level 1: “There’s a lion across the river.” = There’s a lion across the river. Level 2: “There’s a lion across the river.” = I don’t want to go (or have other people go) across the river. Level 3: “There’s a lion across the river.” = I’m with the popular kids who are too cool to go across the river. Level 4: “There’s a lion across the river.” = A firm stance against trans-river expansionism focus grouped well with undecided voters in my constituency. Almost everyone would rather not be eaten by a lion. I certainly would rather not be eaten by a lion. Whether or not I am eaten by a lion still does not drive much of my decis...