The word ‘signalling’ is often used in Less Wrong, and often used wrongly.
I recommend that people do not use this post as a guide to how to use the term ‘signalling’. It presents false claims with authority and confidence.
These activities seem completely pointless, costly and difficult. Paradoxically, it is probably this very difficulty that serves to explain why they are done at all. Take the peacock’s tail. A peacock that has to struggle to survive while dragging around a conspicuous tail is clearly at a disadvantage. But if he can continue to survive, then clearly he must be pretty strong! So the peahens may choose to mate with him rather than the peacocks with less conspicuous tails, whose survival is thus a less impressive feat.
This is misleading. It idealizes and trivializes the signal given conveying the impression that it is ‘strength’ or (non-inclusive) fitness that must be signaled. However the peackock’s tail is the go to example of Fisherian runaway. Even without considering strength-signalling implications the tails are signalling “if you mate with me your male offspring (and later generation male descendants) will likely also have enormous tails and be chosen as a mate by other hens”. When it comes to sexual signalling, sexiness itself is one of the most powerful signals that can be sent. We don’t need to rationalize that out into some objective signal of strength, health or virtue other than ability to successfully signal. In this (and some other social situations) signalling the ability to signal well is the primary point.
Clear thinking requires making distinctions. Using the word “signalling” to mean “pandering”, “tricking people”, “showing”, or “toeing the party line” does nothing but lead to confusion and muddle.
To various degrees every one of those can be correctly described in terms of the signalling implications.
If you’re going to use jargon, use it in its precise sense. That’s what is jargon is for, communicating precisely.
Yes. And if you are going to preach about the usage of jargon it becomes even more important to get it right.
I recommend that people do not use this post as a guide to how to use the term ‘signalling’. It presents false claims with authority and confidence.
This is misleading. It idealizes and trivializes the signal given conveying the impression that it is ‘strength’ or (non-inclusive) fitness that must be signaled. However the peackock’s tail is the go to example of Fisherian runaway. Even without considering strength-signalling implications the tails are signalling “if you mate with me your male offspring (and later generation male descendants) will likely also have enormous tails and be chosen as a mate by other hens”. When it comes to sexual signalling, sexiness itself is one of the most powerful signals that can be sent. We don’t need to rationalize that out into some objective signal of strength, health or virtue other than ability to successfully signal. In this (and some other social situations) signalling the ability to signal well is the primary point.
To various degrees every one of those can be correctly described in terms of the signalling implications.
Yes. And if you are going to preach about the usage of jargon it becomes even more important to get it right.
(I endorse Academian’s description.)