Chris Andersen #11 of the Miami Heat looks on during a game against the Brooklyn Nets at American Airlines Arena on March 12, 2014 in Miami. (Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images)
Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman are having a friendly argument about hipster topknots and tattoos (full disclosure: I played an indirect role in the prehistory of this debate). As Krugman noted in an earlier post, this seems like a trivial topic to argue about. However, it actually touches on important questions of communication in economic theory.
Tattoos and topknots are forms of signalling
Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and his ideas about tattoos and topknots stem from game theory, a set of mathematical arguments developed by economists about how human beings interact in strategic situations. In certain games, you may not be sure about the type of actor you are playing with (e.g., you may not know if she will respond positively if you make a concession to her), and other actors may not know which type of actor you are either. In these games, actors can send signals to each other to communicate their type (for instance, to say “I am a nice person — if you trust me, I will behave in a trustworthy way”).
Krugman and Klein both agree that tattoos and topknots are signals of this kind, but disagree about what is being signalled. For Krugman, tattoos and topknots are ways of signaling that you are not interested in conventional jobs, since many employers will find them unattractive. For Klein, tattoos and topknots are ways of signaling that you are interested in conventional jobs, but only of the right, creative kind. You’re also signaling to people around you that you’re well paid enough to be a hipster living in Brooklyn, but you’re still unconventional (for conformist values of unconventionality) and cool.
However, tattoos and topknots are different kinds of signals
For most relevant purposes, game theorists think that signals should be costly if they are going to provide real information about the type of actor that you are. Anyone can claim that they’re honest, whether they are or not. If you really want to demonstrate your honesty to others, you are best advised to take some visible and costly action which a dishonest person would be unlikely to take (being honest, for example, in some situation where your short-term self-interest might lead you to cheat). This kind of signal will be much more credible to others.
This means that topknots and tattoos are different kinds of signals. Topknots, even extravagantly weird ones, verge perilously close to unconvincing “cheap talk.” If a topknotted hipster changes his mind and decides to seek employment in a boring conventional job, all he needs to do is go for a haircut. Tattoos are much harder to get rid of, which means that they are much costlier signals. Diego Gambetta, in his wonderful book on communication among criminals, “Codes of the Underworld,” writes about how crooks use tattoos to signal their commitment to their lifestyle:
Erefaan’s face is covered in tattoos. “Spit on my grave” is tattooed across his forehead; “I hate you, Mum” etched on his left cheek. The tattoos are an expression of loyalty…. The Number [the name of the hierarchical system in Pollsmoor prison] demands … that you are marked, indelibly, for life. Facial tattoos are the ultimate abandonment of all hope of a life outside.
That’s real commitment.
This provides a plausible gauge of hipster seriousness
Hipsters, under both Klein’s and Krugman’s arguments, are signalling their type to others. The signal is credible because it is costly. You are demonstrating your coolness by making it more unlikely that conventional employers will hire you (Krugman) and/or that employers will hire you for non-creative jobs (Klein).
It’s plausible that you can use the strength of the signal being sent to gauge whether the modal person on the street in Brooklyn is a Klein-hipster or a Krugman-hipster. Klein-hipsters are likely to opt for less costly signals. They want well-paying jobs, but also want to signal their edginess a little so that the well-paying jobs are a little more creative and interesting. Hence, they’re likely to opt for extravagant hairstyles over tattoos, and where they do sport tats, they are likely to be tats that could be discreetly covered up with long-sleeve shirts and trousers if there were a change in life circumstances. Krugman-hipsters are likely to be more committed, and to signal their commitment through tattoos that are less easily effaced.
Indeed, if the two types co-exist in the same geographic area, it’s possible that an arms-race dynamic might develop, rather like the one that some evolutionary theorists believe led to the extravagance of peacocks’ tails. Krugman-hipsters will surely find it annoying to be misidentified as Klein-hipsters, leading them to adopt ever more extreme forms of body modification to distinguish themselves. Klein-hipsters, in contrast, will be flattered to be mistaken for Krugman-hipsters, leading them to try to keep up with Krugman-hipsters as best as they can while preserving employment opportunities, and perhaps collectively shifting employers’ expectations in the process.
It’s possible that this article will help spur the process on. If, five years from now, committed Brooklyn hipsters are sporting facial tattoos saying “Spit on my grave” and “I hate you, Mom,” feel free to blame me and political science.