>In practice, people like me sneer at gold-plated toilet seats and insist we really really really have no interest in anything like that, the fact that it’s not an option for us is totally coincidental,
Gold-*plated* may not be an option but if you'll settle for [metallic] gold-*colored*, you can ftr order one right now on Amazon for <$50 :P
But you see, I really really really have no interest in anything like that, the fact that it's not an option for me is totally coincidental. (A gold-colored toilet seat my imply an interest in actual (unobtainable) gold plated toilet seats or raise the general social status of such things—can't have that!)
Would it be possible to test how much of your interests are "genuine," and how much are "taste games" by observing how successful they make you in your social circle? If something you like doesn't seem to make you popular with other people, if they seem uninterested in hearing about it, maybe you "really" like it. If you actually have to seek out an affinity group for it instead of just talking about it with your "default" group, maybe you "really" like it. If you feel an urge to conceal that you like something to other people, maybe you "really" like it.
For example, only a few people I know like talking about Fifties science fiction movies, so I had to seek out online groups for that. I first became interested in such movies reading about them by myself in the library. So probably, I actually just "really" like them.
I'm not sure how to make this into a formal measurement. But I agree with the general argument you're making. Sometimes people like things where there's almost no conceivable "benefit" to liking the thing. (Other than that you like it.) I think this surely happens, so I think there is definitely at least some "non-strategic" taste.
There's a problem using the Seinfeld pic. It wasn't ok then, the clothes. Not to me, nor to anyone I knew that also loved and watched the show. It's a less than good opener to another interesting read.
The pop show in the UK for ages was Top Of The Pops. When older shows were shown, it gave me a chance to mock my dad's music, except when I did he said, no, that music was crap then as it is now.
That is interesting, and quick! I did think a poll might need to include age (sometimes a contentious button to add) as the phenomenon, the young age after which things like fashion/cool/hip come into sight, varies, along with time, place. And even then the age will scatter at those different critical years.
That's interesting. My impression is definitely that most people thought at the time that Seinfeld was fairly fashionable (at least for Jerry/Elaine... maybe not so much George/Kramer). Although definitely none of the characters were portrayed as super hip... Maybe I'll try running a poll.
I disagree with your point about both economic and cultural signalling being wasteful. While that's true to some extent, with cultural signalling where you spend a lot of time studying, even if it is a waste it's only wasting your own time, which puts an upper limit on how much you can be wasting. I haven't actually calculated anything but I'm pretty sure the amount of wasted effort (and negative externalities) put in by all the gold miners and so on to supply a rich golden stuff enjoyer is far more than the amount of wasted effort put in by an intellectual or pseudointellectual. Even if I try to imagine a Glass Beads player who focuses on topics I have little to no respect for, is doing it wrong anyway, and isn't even enjoying it because they're just trying to one-up the other players rather than intrinsically interested, that still seems way less wasteful than a lot of conspicuous consumption does.
I hear you. At least, I certainly share the same intuition! But I think it's hard to compare different types of "waste". The obvious difference here is externalities: Digging up gold damages the environment more than reading Proust. But is that "worse"? I'd argue it depends on your value system.
I am not really in the social group that I would prefer I was in. Through my particular skills, I've gotten in with the geek crowd, who like anime, fantasy metal, and funny t-shirts. I hate it all. It's become a joke among us that I won't like what everyone else is gassed about.
So reading this article, I was continuously testing my own preferences to see if they give me status in my social circle. Nope, no, none of them.
But had I been in my preferred social circle, they would have given me plenty status. I like philosophy and critically acclaimed movies and dressing smart -- preferences that would fit in well in the ivory tower.
So may the causality be the reverse of what you describe here? Maybe we seek out the social circles that give status for our real preferences? E.g. I really like wine, so I seek out the group that will hail a wine-lover. That's why we always find our preferences aligning with our group.
Interesting... One thought this bring up for me is that I guess there's a bit of a tension between what tastes would be most adaptive in our current social circle vs. "aspirational" tastes that would be adaptive in social circles that we'd *like* to belong to.
I think that there's no doubt that some of the causality runs in the direction you suggest. The general version of this is that we tend to seek out "games we think we can do well at", as well as "games that will bring higher rewards". So I think game theory would suggest tastes that are a mixture of "current situation adaptive" and "aspirational adaptive". (Of course, I don't mean to imply any particular causality for you!)
He argued that until the 1960's there really were very few significant differences between what was available (and therefore what was consumed) by different classes in America.
Bourdieu explains a lot but a purely cultural theory doesn’t tell you /why/ taste took the path it did. It implies a random set of starting beliefs, with everything evolving in response to that. But clearly some tastes are motivated by other things. Is there anything you’re genuinely embarrassed to like? That implies both that a) you are generally aware of the social implications of your tastes, in support of the theory, but also b) that other factors also matter (otherwise, being embarrassed by a taste would be sufficient to stop having it). We also have tastes that seem much too aligned with non-cultural priorities for that to be largely coincidental. While music varies widely in different societies and regions, all major cultures seem to have converged on consistent rhythms, *some* sort of scale, and volumes that don’t cause immediate pain to most listeners. That’s obvious though, so how do we synthesize these observations into something more interesting?
My theory:
1) Shifts in cultural taste are driven in part by the object-level tastes of those with high status. (When I’m in good enough shape I love wearing looks I think are “objectively” less fashionable, like something D&D-inspired, and that becomes its own status play. But I don’t pick those looks at random!)
2) These shifts are subject to guardrails in the forms of the object-level tastes of everyone else. (I still can’t pull off a literal clown suit, unless I make some heavy alterations to make it “fashion clown”)
3) This is made even more fluid by the fact that a significant driver of status is the ability to identify and play to the tastes of those around you, in addition to selling your own.
> That implies both that a) you are generally aware of the social implications of your tastes, in support of the theory, but also b) that other factors also matter (otherwise, being embarrassed by a taste would be sufficient to stop having it).
This is a great point! Certainly there are preferences that aren't culturally determined. (Almost everyone likes the taste of sugar, and not because it's high status.) The strongest version of this thesis would be that culture would explain the *variation* in tastes.
But your point about "embarrassing" tastes still seems strong despite that clarification. (Though it's hard not to get wrapped up in neurotic meta questions—Am I *actually* embarrassed to like Master and Commander, or am I only pretending to be embarrassed as part of some complex anti-signalling whatever.) This makes Bourdieu frustratingly hard to refute. But I tend to agree with you that there is significant variation in taste between people that isn't driven by cultural associations.
Master and Commamder is a terrific movie. People whose status games lead them to dislike itnare really missing out! (Though I suppose I'm free to say so, since it's a movie that is not devalued in my cultural context).
(Before this discussion your host genuinely loved Master and Commander and was genuinely embarrassed about it. After this discussion, your host isn't sure what to think.)
Great post! We need all the lighthearted deflation of superiority we can get....And as you imply, there is no need to feel bad about seeking prestige and status - I'd say this is almost instinctual.
That being said I maintain a shred of hope that displaying my oh-so-so-fascinating library. has at least a little to do with my inherent like and interest in its books...
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that there is another social , but not prestige-seeking motivation to play Glass Beads, namely, finding others who share interests. Well... yes, that may still be based on finding others to associate with the in-crowd you are craving,,,, but still, it's nice to talk about interesting things with interesting people, no?? Thanks!
Enlightening! Major oh shit moment at the Travel section, my partner and I have often noticed that travel makes up an absurd share of our conversation with not-yet-close friends.
As with other basic human desires, I think the right approach is the Stoic / Buddhist general philosophy of "accept it without judgement, try to notice when it is changing your decisions, and try to account for it so that you're still optimizing for happiness/altruism and not whatever your biology is optimizing for". So having it laid out for me like this is going to help me notice when it's influencing me in the future!
Of course *within* the travel status competition you've got versions of the same levels
- someone who goes to a budget priced all-inclusive resort are "horrible proles, they may as well have stayed home"
- someone who goes to very popular attractions are "basic people who are just going to say they've been, their 'over-tourist'ing' ruins things for people who can actually appreciate things"
- someone who goes to luxury destinations is someone who doesn't know that "money can't buy taste"
- someone who goes on an experiential trip is "insufferably smug/self-righteous and probably can't stop talking about how ayahuasca opened their mind"
But then in my own travels I'm also in a status game. I'm going to a popular tourist attraction because I'm enlightened enough to know that "actually popular things are popular for a reason" but also more enlightened than basic travellers because I know to arrive early/late, buy tickets online in advance, skip lines, don't buy things from the gift shop, etc.
What does it say about me that I didn't even notice Jerry Seinfeld's clothes in that picture of him, and that even after you pointed them out, I had precisely no opinion as to whether they were stylish, dated, or otherwise?
I also like a variety of highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow beers and dining experiences.
I think I would find being obsessively status conscious exhausting. But is it your and/or Bourdieu’s thesis that people who claim not to be status conscious are nevertheless status conscious in a more obscure or subtle way?
I have no idea what it says! One explanation would be that you're a super-elite cultural omnivore (https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/#on-abstraction-and-omnivores) and can appreciate Jerry's clothes as an example of "normcore" or something. Or maybe you just don't care about clothes that much. Or maybe you're just less status conscious than other people.
I don't see any reason to think that status consciousness should be constant over the population. But I think that Bourdieu and I would both claim that almost everyone has some degree of status consciousness and it's often quite subtle.
I would add here that how much you "play the game" is likely related to how "social" or "socially integrated" (in the sense of being around people you kind of like and share/want to share stuff with) you are.
I would also posit that "playing the game less" is correlated with independent thought, and that correlation is causal in both ways (a free thinker will tend to like stuff people around him don't, and someone who "plays the game" will end up with diminished independent thought).
Maybe I feel i dont "play the game" much and want to feel good about myself. But I think is likely possible to empirically test the ideas above.
I'm not here to argue with the idea that people play taste games or that I play taste games or anything, but I've heard this argument before and something about it always misses me?
Okay, take the baby name example. I've never thought that I like certain names because of how they literally, audibly sound. I've always thought that names have cultural connotations that change over time, and I'm most likely to share the cultural connotations of names with my generation, so names that I like that I feel like have good cultural connotations and would be a good name to have are names that people my own age might also think have good cultural connotations (vibes). I could like names that have traditional but not stuffy vibes like Charlotte and Olivia or names that have very hippy or like, conspicuously non-comformist vibes like Rain or West but at no point would I be confused about why people in the past would have thought about names entirely differently and had a different idea about what makes a good name to navigate the world with. Status is involved in this (would I prefer a high status name like William with all the formality that might come with it, or something that has different cultural connotations of masculinity like Brock?) but at no point am I like, confused by the “authenticity” of my taste.
Or like the picture of Senfeild. He looks fine to me but that’s probably just because I like fashion and I can read over a slightly longer period of time - like his clothing is “legible” to me because I’ve familiarized myself with it just like more contemporary clothing is legible to me. When I read someones outfit I also don’t feel confused about what is a basic, sensory judgement (that texture looks bad to touch) and what’s a judgement with context - this silhouette looks bad because I’m assuming they were actually intended to hit [x] silhouette that’s popular for [y] reasons and they’ve failed to achieve it in a way that’s also revealed they were *trying* to achieve it (and being able to perceive that someone is trying to achieve something while they’re failing at it being a bad thing is of course also cultural…) blah blah blah. I guess what I’m trying to get at is, where is the self deception?
I know sometimes people say something is “objectively” bad or good but I’m assuming when it comes to anything that involves… taste, like any level of taste above sensory feedback, they mean given [y] values and [x] cultural connotations [z] has obviously failed/succeeded. Like the shared values and symbolic/read meaning go unspoken, but of course they aren’t unconscious?
I apologize for not condensing my thoughts but I guess the crux of this is: who thinks that their feelings towards something with symbolic or contextual meaning aren’t influenced by that things symbolic or contextual meaning? How is my or anyone else’s ability to read the world around them and respond to it “not real” somehow?
I do find it unsettling how predictable someone's tastes are if you know a few basic things about them. Seems to lend credence to the idea in your opening anecdote.
At the same time, should it be surprising that preferences correlate? It seems reasonable that preferences are a reflection of values, and so people with similar values would have correlated preferences. This mechanism could operate independent of the unconscious game theory you mention.
This makes me deliriously happy. Like god himself has kissed me on the forehead.
The current high status style of taste is Cultural Omnivorousness https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0134.xml Definitely influenced by Bourdieu
See also: https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/#on-abstraction-and-omnivores
>In practice, people like me sneer at gold-plated toilet seats and insist we really really really have no interest in anything like that, the fact that it’s not an option for us is totally coincidental,
Gold-*plated* may not be an option but if you'll settle for [metallic] gold-*colored*, you can ftr order one right now on Amazon for <$50 :P
But you see, I really really really have no interest in anything like that, the fact that it's not an option for me is totally coincidental. (A gold-colored toilet seat my imply an interest in actual (unobtainable) gold plated toilet seats or raise the general social status of such things—can't have that!)
Would it be possible to test how much of your interests are "genuine," and how much are "taste games" by observing how successful they make you in your social circle? If something you like doesn't seem to make you popular with other people, if they seem uninterested in hearing about it, maybe you "really" like it. If you actually have to seek out an affinity group for it instead of just talking about it with your "default" group, maybe you "really" like it. If you feel an urge to conceal that you like something to other people, maybe you "really" like it.
For example, only a few people I know like talking about Fifties science fiction movies, so I had to seek out online groups for that. I first became interested in such movies reading about them by myself in the library. So probably, I actually just "really" like them.
I'm not sure how to make this into a formal measurement. But I agree with the general argument you're making. Sometimes people like things where there's almost no conceivable "benefit" to liking the thing. (Other than that you like it.) I think this surely happens, so I think there is definitely at least some "non-strategic" taste.
There's a problem using the Seinfeld pic. It wasn't ok then, the clothes. Not to me, nor to anyone I knew that also loved and watched the show. It's a less than good opener to another interesting read.
The pop show in the UK for ages was Top Of The Pops. When older shows were shown, it gave me a chance to mock my dad's music, except when I did he said, no, that music was crap then as it is now.
Well, I did a poll. It's completely unscientific and meaningless, but out of 52 people who voted:
1 person thought jerry and elaine were "pretty fashionable"
6 thought they were "average"
6 thought they were "pretty unfashionable"
39 didn't watch seinfeld in the 90s but voted anyway 🤔
A slight majority thought they were at least average, but only barely. So definitely some support for your position!
That is interesting, and quick! I did think a poll might need to include age (sometimes a contentious button to add) as the phenomenon, the young age after which things like fashion/cool/hip come into sight, varies, along with time, place. And even then the age will scatter at those different critical years.
That's interesting. My impression is definitely that most people thought at the time that Seinfeld was fairly fashionable (at least for Jerry/Elaine... maybe not so much George/Kramer). Although definitely none of the characters were portrayed as super hip... Maybe I'll try running a poll.
I disagree with your point about both economic and cultural signalling being wasteful. While that's true to some extent, with cultural signalling where you spend a lot of time studying, even if it is a waste it's only wasting your own time, which puts an upper limit on how much you can be wasting. I haven't actually calculated anything but I'm pretty sure the amount of wasted effort (and negative externalities) put in by all the gold miners and so on to supply a rich golden stuff enjoyer is far more than the amount of wasted effort put in by an intellectual or pseudointellectual. Even if I try to imagine a Glass Beads player who focuses on topics I have little to no respect for, is doing it wrong anyway, and isn't even enjoying it because they're just trying to one-up the other players rather than intrinsically interested, that still seems way less wasteful than a lot of conspicuous consumption does.
I hear you. At least, I certainly share the same intuition! But I think it's hard to compare different types of "waste". The obvious difference here is externalities: Digging up gold damages the environment more than reading Proust. But is that "worse"? I'd argue it depends on your value system.
There's another explanation.
I am not really in the social group that I would prefer I was in. Through my particular skills, I've gotten in with the geek crowd, who like anime, fantasy metal, and funny t-shirts. I hate it all. It's become a joke among us that I won't like what everyone else is gassed about.
So reading this article, I was continuously testing my own preferences to see if they give me status in my social circle. Nope, no, none of them.
But had I been in my preferred social circle, they would have given me plenty status. I like philosophy and critically acclaimed movies and dressing smart -- preferences that would fit in well in the ivory tower.
So may the causality be the reverse of what you describe here? Maybe we seek out the social circles that give status for our real preferences? E.g. I really like wine, so I seek out the group that will hail a wine-lover. That's why we always find our preferences aligning with our group.
Interesting... One thought this bring up for me is that I guess there's a bit of a tension between what tastes would be most adaptive in our current social circle vs. "aspirational" tastes that would be adaptive in social circles that we'd *like* to belong to.
I think that there's no doubt that some of the causality runs in the direction you suggest. The general version of this is that we tend to seek out "games we think we can do well at", as well as "games that will bring higher rewards". So I think game theory would suggest tastes that are a mixture of "current situation adaptive" and "aspirational adaptive". (Of course, I don't mean to imply any particular causality for you!)
That made me smile and gave me a slight headache. Thank you.
Have you read Charles Murray's*Coming Apart*.
He argued that until the 1960's there really were very few significant differences between what was available (and therefore what was consumed) by different classes in America.
Bourdieu explains a lot but a purely cultural theory doesn’t tell you /why/ taste took the path it did. It implies a random set of starting beliefs, with everything evolving in response to that. But clearly some tastes are motivated by other things. Is there anything you’re genuinely embarrassed to like? That implies both that a) you are generally aware of the social implications of your tastes, in support of the theory, but also b) that other factors also matter (otherwise, being embarrassed by a taste would be sufficient to stop having it). We also have tastes that seem much too aligned with non-cultural priorities for that to be largely coincidental. While music varies widely in different societies and regions, all major cultures seem to have converged on consistent rhythms, *some* sort of scale, and volumes that don’t cause immediate pain to most listeners. That’s obvious though, so how do we synthesize these observations into something more interesting?
My theory:
1) Shifts in cultural taste are driven in part by the object-level tastes of those with high status. (When I’m in good enough shape I love wearing looks I think are “objectively” less fashionable, like something D&D-inspired, and that becomes its own status play. But I don’t pick those looks at random!)
2) These shifts are subject to guardrails in the forms of the object-level tastes of everyone else. (I still can’t pull off a literal clown suit, unless I make some heavy alterations to make it “fashion clown”)
3) This is made even more fluid by the fact that a significant driver of status is the ability to identify and play to the tastes of those around you, in addition to selling your own.
> Is there anything you’re genuinely embarrassed to like?
Yes indeed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_and_Commander:_The_Far_Side_of_the_World
> That implies both that a) you are generally aware of the social implications of your tastes, in support of the theory, but also b) that other factors also matter (otherwise, being embarrassed by a taste would be sufficient to stop having it).
This is a great point! Certainly there are preferences that aren't culturally determined. (Almost everyone likes the taste of sugar, and not because it's high status.) The strongest version of this thesis would be that culture would explain the *variation* in tastes.
But your point about "embarrassing" tastes still seems strong despite that clarification. (Though it's hard not to get wrapped up in neurotic meta questions—Am I *actually* embarrassed to like Master and Commander, or am I only pretending to be embarrassed as part of some complex anti-signalling whatever.) This makes Bourdieu frustratingly hard to refute. But I tend to agree with you that there is significant variation in taste between people that isn't driven by cultural associations.
Master and Commamder is a terrific movie. People whose status games lead them to dislike itnare really missing out! (Though I suppose I'm free to say so, since it's a movie that is not devalued in my cultural context).
Master and Commander is a highly esteemed movie. Almost a little to excess. https://www.gq.com/story/master-and-commander-anniversary
Huh. Must be a countersignalling sobbery thing. Or maybe our host was just joking
(Before this discussion your host genuinely loved Master and Commander and was genuinely embarrassed about it. After this discussion, your host isn't sure what to think.)
Great post! We need all the lighthearted deflation of superiority we can get....And as you imply, there is no need to feel bad about seeking prestige and status - I'd say this is almost instinctual.
That being said I maintain a shred of hope that displaying my oh-so-so-fascinating library. has at least a little to do with my inherent like and interest in its books...
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that there is another social , but not prestige-seeking motivation to play Glass Beads, namely, finding others who share interests. Well... yes, that may still be based on finding others to associate with the in-crowd you are craving,,,, but still, it's nice to talk about interesting things with interesting people, no?? Thanks!
Enlightening! Major oh shit moment at the Travel section, my partner and I have often noticed that travel makes up an absurd share of our conversation with not-yet-close friends.
As with other basic human desires, I think the right approach is the Stoic / Buddhist general philosophy of "accept it without judgement, try to notice when it is changing your decisions, and try to account for it so that you're still optimizing for happiness/altruism and not whatever your biology is optimizing for". So having it laid out for me like this is going to help me notice when it's influencing me in the future!
Of course *within* the travel status competition you've got versions of the same levels
- someone who goes to a budget priced all-inclusive resort are "horrible proles, they may as well have stayed home"
- someone who goes to very popular attractions are "basic people who are just going to say they've been, their 'over-tourist'ing' ruins things for people who can actually appreciate things"
- someone who goes to luxury destinations is someone who doesn't know that "money can't buy taste"
- someone who goes on an experiential trip is "insufferably smug/self-righteous and probably can't stop talking about how ayahuasca opened their mind"
But then in my own travels I'm also in a status game. I'm going to a popular tourist attraction because I'm enlightened enough to know that "actually popular things are popular for a reason" but also more enlightened than basic travellers because I know to arrive early/late, buy tickets online in advance, skip lines, don't buy things from the gift shop, etc.
What does it say about me that I didn't even notice Jerry Seinfeld's clothes in that picture of him, and that even after you pointed them out, I had precisely no opinion as to whether they were stylish, dated, or otherwise?
I also like a variety of highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow beers and dining experiences.
I think I would find being obsessively status conscious exhausting. But is it your and/or Bourdieu’s thesis that people who claim not to be status conscious are nevertheless status conscious in a more obscure or subtle way?
I have no idea what it says! One explanation would be that you're a super-elite cultural omnivore (https://dynomight.net/bourdieu/#on-abstraction-and-omnivores) and can appreciate Jerry's clothes as an example of "normcore" or something. Or maybe you just don't care about clothes that much. Or maybe you're just less status conscious than other people.
I don't see any reason to think that status consciousness should be constant over the population. But I think that Bourdieu and I would both claim that almost everyone has some degree of status consciousness and it's often quite subtle.
Nice post, thanks.
I would add here that how much you "play the game" is likely related to how "social" or "socially integrated" (in the sense of being around people you kind of like and share/want to share stuff with) you are.
I would also posit that "playing the game less" is correlated with independent thought, and that correlation is causal in both ways (a free thinker will tend to like stuff people around him don't, and someone who "plays the game" will end up with diminished independent thought).
Maybe I feel i dont "play the game" much and want to feel good about myself. But I think is likely possible to empirically test the ideas above.
I'm not here to argue with the idea that people play taste games or that I play taste games or anything, but I've heard this argument before and something about it always misses me?
Okay, take the baby name example. I've never thought that I like certain names because of how they literally, audibly sound. I've always thought that names have cultural connotations that change over time, and I'm most likely to share the cultural connotations of names with my generation, so names that I like that I feel like have good cultural connotations and would be a good name to have are names that people my own age might also think have good cultural connotations (vibes). I could like names that have traditional but not stuffy vibes like Charlotte and Olivia or names that have very hippy or like, conspicuously non-comformist vibes like Rain or West but at no point would I be confused about why people in the past would have thought about names entirely differently and had a different idea about what makes a good name to navigate the world with. Status is involved in this (would I prefer a high status name like William with all the formality that might come with it, or something that has different cultural connotations of masculinity like Brock?) but at no point am I like, confused by the “authenticity” of my taste.
Or like the picture of Senfeild. He looks fine to me but that’s probably just because I like fashion and I can read over a slightly longer period of time - like his clothing is “legible” to me because I’ve familiarized myself with it just like more contemporary clothing is legible to me. When I read someones outfit I also don’t feel confused about what is a basic, sensory judgement (that texture looks bad to touch) and what’s a judgement with context - this silhouette looks bad because I’m assuming they were actually intended to hit [x] silhouette that’s popular for [y] reasons and they’ve failed to achieve it in a way that’s also revealed they were *trying* to achieve it (and being able to perceive that someone is trying to achieve something while they’re failing at it being a bad thing is of course also cultural…) blah blah blah. I guess what I’m trying to get at is, where is the self deception?
I know sometimes people say something is “objectively” bad or good but I’m assuming when it comes to anything that involves… taste, like any level of taste above sensory feedback, they mean given [y] values and [x] cultural connotations [z] has obviously failed/succeeded. Like the shared values and symbolic/read meaning go unspoken, but of course they aren’t unconscious?
I apologize for not condensing my thoughts but I guess the crux of this is: who thinks that their feelings towards something with symbolic or contextual meaning aren’t influenced by that things symbolic or contextual meaning? How is my or anyone else’s ability to read the world around them and respond to it “not real” somehow?
I do find it unsettling how predictable someone's tastes are if you know a few basic things about them. Seems to lend credence to the idea in your opening anecdote.
At the same time, should it be surprising that preferences correlate? It seems reasonable that preferences are a reflection of values, and so people with similar values would have correlated preferences. This mechanism could operate independent of the unconscious game theory you mention.