Signals, Noise, Signally Noise, Noisy Signals

I was talking to someone recently. She was very much into fashion, where as I have never entirely understood the field of aesthetics. So I asked her, why fashion?

She talked about the idea of everything being a signal and made a smug expression. I initially dismissed the idea, somewhat confused by her expression. However, the thought is still lingering in my head two weeks later.

What follows is an attempt to understand what she meant and what secret she found out (Without talking to her, of course - I can’t be seen as cognitively feeble lol):

The definition from Wikipedia for signaling theory in context to economics:

• Signaling in contract theory is the idea that one party (the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal).

In my mind, this generates the idea that there exists some information transfer that is not credible (i.e.: noise) that does not permit a valid view of the individual. However, for this definition of signaling vs. noise to be valid there needs to be at least two valid states an inner reality vs. an external facade. For this dichotomy to be valid, there must be a distinction and a measurable difference if they are one in the same or a Ship of Theseus-like paradigm then there is no distinction and the conceptions of noise and signals collapse.

So then what constitutes the outward facade? Most commonly, it is interpreted as speech and the information contained within it - the idea of lying or intentionally misrepresenting. A key note though, lying is not the misrepresentation of self, as the authentic self is being represented - the authentic self just exists on a higher frame of theory of mind (that is repeating reflections of how someone responds given how they think someone perceives them). The “misinterpreted image” or derived truth is not a fault of the person being inauthentic but, it is a fault of the viewer not seeing the higher image. There is a footnote to also be made about truth. For an authentic depiction of the self, truth is not required, but for a depiction of truth it is required (which is not the current concern).

As a result, the depictions of outward speech are authentic representations of the self. Any perception of the self is a depiction of it regardless of truth value. If the above is not concrete enough, if a person says X then the person said X. What the senses perceive is not incorrect; It is correct in its own right. It sees authentically. However, the mind races ahead in most scenarios - playing out chess moves in advance casting someone as an actor or sort. The depiction of self even when intentionally lying or deceiving is an authentic depiction.

There then is the contrast. All agents credibly convey information about themselves regardless of if the mind’s perception of the other sees a bird’s eye view or is blind. There then is no signal and noise. All is unfortunately signal. The signaling vs. reality facade collapses.

So if I don’t wear fancy clothes, it is still an authentic depiction of self. TLDR: I got clowned on.