I think opacity may not be the sole key to “success”, but it is a very important component.

The other point here is, that opacity is learned early during socialization and is a habit, a point of distinction between different social strata and of social reproduction, common understanding and style of certain strata as Bourdieu pointed out in “La Distinction”. So it is hard to decipher and to imitate for anyone outside that class.

I agree with you. This post troubled me as I wrote it and even more so in re-reading it. Even though it is against my personal “blogging” policy, I have been very tempted to hit the delete button. Still, as you note, there is something in this post that is “close” and it might at least provide a stepping stone to something better.

I am trying to get at the idea that to be human involves a process of generating signals that allow others to shape their behavior so that we can work in concert. Deming’s orchestra example comes to mind. The whole of concerted behavior can become greater than the sum of the parts only IF the signaling between the actors tends toward greater congruency. To my mind therefore, greater congruency of signaling is the aim of the system by which we communicate. If we intentionally misdirect OR unintentionally distort the signals we put out, we sub-optimize the performance of the whole and the interaction losses effectiveness. In my mind, this aspect of the post seems to work pretty well.

Now, I have observed that “successful people”, like poker players, seem to be very adept at managing the signals they send. (This trait may be a function of genetics and/or skill). And I start wondering if my lack of skill in interpreting their signals reflects a deficit in my “signal receiver” or is the signal being intentionally or unintentionally distorted at the transmitter? I know that in the case of various disabilities such as Autism and Schizophrenia, the distortion is at the transmitter, but what about “successful people”?

Of course, no signaling can be perfect. There is always distortion to a greater or lesser degree, and this really confounds the argument I make in the post. First, we must decide if we agree that the aim of the human system for signaling (communication) is indeed, greater congruency of meaning. Second, we must try to understand to what degree the efficacy of signaling varies within that system. Third, we must try to determine the characteristics of in-system signaling and signaling that represents “special cause” and therefore makes the system less predictable.

Special cause signaling increases the asymmetry of information in group action, which is counter to the aim of the system that I have put forth. This makes the system of group action less predictable. In other words, the things we set out to do in concerted action (in shared theory and method) become less efficacious. When special cause is injected into the system because the aims of an individual actor in the system are different than the aims of the group, concerted action is undermined even though the aims of the agent of special cause may be served.

Clearly my thesis in the post has a lot of problems, but the systems view it represents should provide grist for thought.

Is individual “success” most usefully viewed as a product of the system or as a product of special cause”?
Does opacity produce “success” or does “success” produce opacity?
Is opacity best viewed as a key process variable in the system or is it a special cause?
In what ways can “success” (as defined) be produced under conditions of information symmetry.

NOTE: These questions also go to the heart of the circularity you mention regarding opacity that is too opaque to be recognized.

I think you are close with this, but not quite there. I’ll give it some thought. Often, hiding is a manifestation of insecurity or fear (which might also explain risk-averse behavior).

BTW the idea that if one seems to be not opaque it is becuase they are skilled at being so opaque has a worrisome circularity to it. “You are in Denial.” “No I’m not.” “See??”
A kind of existential ‘no exit.’