Be warned! Signaling that you understand signaling is a terrible signal, because it throws all your other signals into doubt. Revealing that you are optimizing your signaling separately (for example, talking about “PUA”) is among the worst signals of all.
Be warned! Signaling that you understand signaling is a terrible signal, because it throws all your other signals into doubt.
This is the opposite of true. People want allies that are competent signalers. Explicitly talking about signalling is in most cases a bad idea and usually a signal that you don’t understand signalling or respect it sufficiently.
Revealing that you are optimizing your signaling separately (for example, talking about “PUA”) is among the worst signals of all.
To the extent that there are “worst signals of all” rather than signals being dependent on context and goals, talking about PUA wouldn’t be near the top. There are more than enough cases where it is either neutral or positive—especially when that ridiculous acronym isn’t used.
Yes, in a world of shifting coalitions and subcontrancting, a lot of signaling consists of not signaling our abilities directly, but rather signaling our ability to signal our willingness to signal our abilities.
Be warned! Signaling that you understand signaling is a terrible signal, because it throws all your other signals into doubt.
This is the opposite of true. People want allies that are competent signalers. Explicitly talking about signalling is in most cases a bad idea and usually a signal that you don’t understand signalling or respect it sufficiently.
I think there’s a distinction between them possessing a generalised skill in signalling and them being engaged in attempting to influence you via signalling. (Consider “He’s charming” vs. “he’s trying to charm me”). Possibly people resent the implied disrespect in trying to alter their behaviour cia signalling not argument.
It’s helpful here to remember the difference between you figuring out that I’m attempting to influence you (whether via signalling or any other route), and my expressing to you (whether via signalling or any other route) that I’m attempting to influence you.
What you’re saying rings true, and a lot of people agree with you, but is it actually right? Is it testable? I can think of plenty of counterexamples, by people who look like they know they’re doing. But I can’t think of anyone whom I just want to grab and yell at: “you’d be so effective if you’d just shut up about the signaling already!”
I speculate that some signals gain their effectiveness from being costly, while others gain their effectiveness from mere association with costly signals. Telling a boss that you got a college degree in order to signal to the job market that you would be a good job prospect is not likely to hurt your chances of getting that job. But, telling potential mates that you dress nice to increase your chances of sleeping with them, but have to keep an eye out for deals and frequent thrift shops to maintain your upper class dress style, will not, ceteris paribus, increase your chances. (Obviously this depends on the particulars of the individuals involved in such a discussion, as this would probably not apply to many LessWrongers who could be aware of signalling and find your optimization thereof inherently attractive.)
Remember, a good signal is one that is harmful if false. I don’t think many employers are going to be bothered by the idea that you went to college because you wanted to get a prestigious job—especially since admitting to that also implies that the job you’re interviewing for is prestigious and one you desire.
Equally, in the right relationship, admitting that you use PUA techniques is simply going to make you seem more honest. If you’re trying to manipulate or trick them in to dating you, it’s a horrible idea, since they’ll start picking apart all your lies and misdirections. If you’ve genuinely an honest, upright person towards them, it’s great, because they’ll start looking for falsehoods and not find any—which means they’ll trust you more in the future. (This is from personal experience—one 4 year relationship and one 9 month relationship. Yes, at the same time. Yes, they know about each other. Yes, this is a very nice position to be in :))
Depends on how exactly do you “signal that you understand signalling”. The problem may not be the topic being signalled, but choosing a wrong way to signal it.
For example, if you are frequently seen with attractive sexual partners, then I think it will not make you look bad if you admit that you have some cool know-how, and you are willing to share it for a lot of money.
On the other hand, if you are never seen with attractive sexual partners, but you talk all the time about the know-how you have from internet, even when no one is willing to listen… that is very bad signalling.
While this may be generally true, there are a few situations where being open about your signaling can be a status gain:
Trivial example: counter-signaling
When you’re teaching skill X, pointing out how you are using skill X as an example (but it can’t be the only one)
When the signal isn’t reduced simply by knowing about it. “I’m doing X and there’s nothing you can do to stop me” is generally a very powerful pattern, though it costs you a lot if you can’t actually do X
When the signal you talk about explicitly is not the only signal you’re using. The links in wmorgan’s comment are an example of this. If you write an article on “how to do Y”, readers will tend to assume you’re very good at Y and a set of related skills, not just at the exact set you outlined in the article. By explicitly talking about a medium-strength signal you’re sending out a much stronger signal.
Maybe he’s countersignalling, deliberately offering a superficially-negative signal in order to signal that he doesn’t need to send the “expected” superficially-positive signal. See this article, also by Yvain.
Be warned! Signaling that you understand signaling is a terrible signal, because it throws all your other signals into doubt. Revealing that you are optimizing your signaling separately (for example, talking about “PUA”) is among the worst signals of all.
This is the opposite of true. People want allies that are competent signalers. Explicitly talking about signalling is in most cases a bad idea and usually a signal that you don’t understand signalling or respect it sufficiently.
To the extent that there are “worst signals of all” rather than signals being dependent on context and goals, talking about PUA wouldn’t be near the top. There are more than enough cases where it is either neutral or positive—especially when that ridiculous acronym isn’t used.
Yes, in a world of shifting coalitions and subcontrancting, a lot of signaling consists of not signaling our abilities directly, but rather signaling our ability to signal our willingness to signal our abilities.
I think there’s a distinction between them possessing a generalised skill in signalling and them being engaged in attempting to influence you via signalling. (Consider “He’s charming” vs. “he’s trying to charm me”). Possibly people resent the implied disrespect in trying to alter their behaviour cia signalling not argument.
It’s helpful here to remember the difference between you figuring out that I’m attempting to influence you (whether via signalling or any other route), and my expressing to you (whether via signalling or any other route) that I’m attempting to influence you.
What you’re saying rings true, and a lot of people agree with you, but is it actually right? Is it testable? I can think of plenty of counterexamples, by people who look like they know they’re doing. But I can’t think of anyone whom I just want to grab and yell at: “you’d be so effective if you’d just shut up about the signaling already!”
I can think of one, buts its not a great example.
I speculate that some signals gain their effectiveness from being costly, while others gain their effectiveness from mere association with costly signals. Telling a boss that you got a college degree in order to signal to the job market that you would be a good job prospect is not likely to hurt your chances of getting that job. But, telling potential mates that you dress nice to increase your chances of sleeping with them, but have to keep an eye out for deals and frequent thrift shops to maintain your upper class dress style, will not, ceteris paribus, increase your chances. (Obviously this depends on the particulars of the individuals involved in such a discussion, as this would probably not apply to many LessWrongers who could be aware of signalling and find your optimization thereof inherently attractive.)
Remember, a good signal is one that is harmful if false. I don’t think many employers are going to be bothered by the idea that you went to college because you wanted to get a prestigious job—especially since admitting to that also implies that the job you’re interviewing for is prestigious and one you desire.
Equally, in the right relationship, admitting that you use PUA techniques is simply going to make you seem more honest. If you’re trying to manipulate or trick them in to dating you, it’s a horrible idea, since they’ll start picking apart all your lies and misdirections. If you’ve genuinely an honest, upright person towards them, it’s great, because they’ll start looking for falsehoods and not find any—which means they’ll trust you more in the future. (This is from personal experience—one 4 year relationship and one 9 month relationship. Yes, at the same time. Yes, they know about each other. Yes, this is a very nice position to be in :))
Depends on how exactly do you “signal that you understand signalling”. The problem may not be the topic being signalled, but choosing a wrong way to signal it.
For example, if you are frequently seen with attractive sexual partners, then I think it will not make you look bad if you admit that you have some cool know-how, and you are willing to share it for a lot of money.
On the other hand, if you are never seen with attractive sexual partners, but you talk all the time about the know-how you have from internet, even when no one is willing to listen… that is very bad signalling.
Maybe, but half the point of good signalling is that it can’t be easily faked.
While this may be generally true, there are a few situations where being open about your signaling can be a status gain:
Trivial example: counter-signaling
When you’re teaching skill X, pointing out how you are using skill X as an example (but it can’t be the only one)
When the signal isn’t reduced simply by knowing about it. “I’m doing X and there’s nothing you can do to stop me” is generally a very powerful pattern, though it costs you a lot if you can’t actually do X
When the signal you talk about explicitly is not the only signal you’re using. The links in wmorgan’s comment are an example of this. If you write an article on “how to do Y”, readers will tend to assume you’re very good at Y and a set of related skills, not just at the exact set you outlined in the article. By explicitly talking about a medium-strength signal you’re sending out a much stronger signal.
Maybe he’s countersignalling, deliberately offering a superficially-negative signal in order to signal that he doesn’t need to send the “expected” superficially-positive signal. See this article, also by Yvain.