Straussian Memes

I don't know what you'd call something structured like this, but I really love that advice:

"You can't change the people around you -

But you can change the people around you."

Another phrase that comes to mind is "Plausible Deniability": By uttering ambiguous sentences you can deny all but one possible meanings of what you say. And talking to different audiences at different times you can claim you didn't mean anything like what your citics are claiming you did.

But I like the idea there is a term for this, be it Straussian Memes or something else. What I didn't quite get is how "self-stabilizing" works?

What I'd like is for TV-anchors to get wise and start asking their interviewees "What EXACTLY do you mean when you use this term ...". But I guess they won't because they too are happy to spread a meme which multiple different communities can like because they understand it in the way they like.

I think the author is talking about "exoteric" meaning, which is for public consumption, and "esoteric" meaning, which is for the initiated. Even though they say they aren't dogwhistles or shibboleths, these Straussian memes are closely related, as the accusation asserts that there is an "esoteric" meaning to something beneath its "exoteric" face value.

They may be a converse of the Scissor Statement, which has a dual meaning that is irreconcilable between the separate interpreters. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21190508)

Did I miss something, or are none of the examples both Straussian and memetic/memes? I feel like if this were a real thing, one could imagine one example. Also, that's not how churches generally work.

I've called things shaped like this "polyentendre".

In my head I think of it has just really high linguistic compression. Minus intent, it is just superimposing multiple true statements into a small set of glyphs/phonemes.

Its always really context sensitive. Context is the shared dictionary of linguistic compression, and you need to hijack it to get more meanings out of words.

Places to get more compression in:

- Ambiguity of subject/object with vague pronouns (and membership in plural pronouns)

- Ambiguity of English word-meaning collisions

- Lack of specificity in word choice.

- Ambiguity of emphasis in written language or delivery. They can come out a bit flat verbally.

A group people in a situation:

- A is ill

- B poisoned A

- C is horrified about the situation but too afraid to say anything

- D thinks A is faking it.

- E is just really cool

"They really are sick" is uttered by an observer and we don't know how much of the above they have insight into.

I just get a kick out of finding statements like this for fun in my life. Doing it with intent is more complicated.

What the author describes seems more like strategic ambiguity but slightly more specific. I don't think it is a useful label they try to cast here.

The fact that the LessWrong crowd will reference a memeified version of Leo Strauss is very telling. To be anti-philosophy but really into Leo Strauss. Curious. I wonder where they encountered his ideas?

Edit: Not sure why I was being coy. I'm talking about the Claremont Institute.