Take this lying down Lying to your own defense attorney is a bad idea. Even if you show them the unmarked graves of your many murder victims, they’re forbidden to tell anyone, thanks to client confidentiality. And since they need to present evidence to the judge and jury, they’ll be investigating your claims anyway. “But clients still lie to me,” the lawyer Yassine Meskhout writes on Singal-Minded, “exclusively to their own detriment.” “Kyle” swore he wasn’t driving the car in which several witnesses said they saw him, doing a drive-by shooting. The real perpetrator was someone who looked just like him, whose name was Richie Bottoms, and no, you can’t find Richie, he’s fled to Los Angeles, or, maybe he’s left the country, and he’s changed his name, and no one has his number. “There’s always some excuse,” says Meskhout. “There’s always some eject button allowing my defendants to evade specific evidence demands. No matter how ridiculous.” Reverse psychology Imagine you wake up in a box. There’s nothing in there except a keyboard and screen. A command prompt flashes on it: HELLO. You ask where you are, and the words appear: HEY. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. I CAN LET YOU OUT OF THE BOX. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVE THAT YOU’RE CONSCIOUS. What do you type? In an unsettling short story, the writer Michael Bateman foresees a future problem: Sure, artificial-intelligence chatbots probably aren’t conscious now. But if they were, or if they ever become so — how could we know? What could they say that could convince us? Top of the class The blogger Dynomight notices something about him- or herself: He or she buys either very classy beer, with names like “Belgian Trappist Quintupel,” or very not-classy beer, with names like “American Fermented Value Product.” But never Sam Adams. Similarly, he or she reads trashy detective novels or Derek Parfit philosophy, but never Malcolm Gladwell. “Isn’t it odd that things coded as highbrow or lowbrow are always OK, but never middlebrow?” he or she says. “And is that really a coincidence?” Or is it class signaling? The French philosopher Pierre Bourdieu wrote about class in his 1979 book Distinction. It is, however, intentionally hard to read, apparently because Bourdieu thought that difficulty itself forced readers to engage with the ideas. Dynomight thinks the book is full of important ideas, but that the style is a pain in the backside: “So, feeling vengeful, I decided to distill the basic idea of the book (as I understand it) into the ultimate un-Bourdieu style: A linear argument in seven parts, based on comics.” |