I think the point this post makes is right, both as a literal definition of what a rule is, and of how you should respond to the tendency to make “exceptions.” I prefer the notion of a “framework” to a rule, because it suggests that the rules can be flexible, layered, and only operating in specific contexts (where appropriate). For example, I’m trying to implement a set of rules about when I take breaks from work, but the rule “25 minutes on, 5 minutes off” only is valid when I’m actually at work.
My point of disagreement is the conclusion—that exceptions are primarily a form of self-signaling, a way to avoid being honest about the real rule.
I think instead people have a mistaken belief that you should be able to just declare a rule and stick to it, right away and without modification. They want to be healthy, so the first thought their mind floats is “don’t eat any cookies… EVER AGAIN!”
Well, the real rule they want to follow might be much more nuanced. But instead, they just observe themselves making a rule, then breaking it. “Exception” is just the word they use for a modification of the rule. That and “lack of willpower.”
So the issue isn’t so much one of honesty or self-signaling as a kludgy, ill-thought-out perspective on willpower.
My point of disagreement is the conclusion—that exceptions are primarily a form of self-signaling, a way to avoid being honest about the real rule.
I did not say “self-signaling”.
Note well that the idea of “the real rules have no exceptions” applies to rules that govern social groups and organizations and subcultures and societies just as much (if not more!) as it applies to rules made by a person to govern their own actions.
In that light, the signaling is not to oneself, but to others; and it is of great importance (as the rule-as-stated, clean and exception-free as it is, creates legitimacy, and the appearance of explicit structure and order). And for this reason also, the insight described in the OP is, in such contexts, subversive to the group and to those in power within it, because it is corrosive to the beliefs and behaviors that maintain the group’s cohesion and stability.
Let me rephrase my objection on this point. You explain the rules/exceptions dynamic as motivated by signaling. It’s hard to give examples, because you don’t actually explain the specific function of not stating the “real rule” in any particular case.
My explanation is different. I think that it’s that it’s difficult and contrary to common sense to explicitly state the real rule, with all its nuances and layers.
For example, it’s very easy to say “I’m gonna stop eating cookies.” Then it’s two months later, you eat a cookie, and you make an “exception” that it was OK because you’d been good for so long, or because they’re really good cookies, or whatever. It feels, in the moment, like an appropriate action, even though it violates your original rule.
Then you continue under the assumption that the rule is “I’m gonna stop eating cookies...” until you feel the time is right again to eat another cookie.
The reason you don’t specify the specific circumstances or timing for when it’s OK to eat cookies isn’t necessarily because you want to show yourself what a good dieter you are, or show other people.
It’s just that the idea that you’d explicitly specify the complete rule set seems hard, weird, and just doesn’t occur to most people.
I do think that signaling can enter in here, if people consider what it would look like to others to have some elaborate, constantly modified explicit ruleset for cookie-eating. That might be a factor weighing against it. People want to come across as having willpower, not being neurotic, having good healthy habits already, and being effortlessly successful.
There’s a big difference in explaining why it’s common sense not to create big complicated rulesets for behavior, and why any individual person avoids creating those rulesets.
I think for individuals, the reason is that it’s not common sense, and that even if it were, it’s often hard to think the problem through.
I think the reason why it’s not common sense in the first place does have more to do with signaling and attendant coordination problems. Is it polite to offer alcohol at parties? What if we know that one of the attendees is secretly a recovering alcoholic? Is it polite to refuse dessert if we’re trying to diet? Is it impolite to offer if we know somebody’s trying to diet?
It’s hard to give examples, because you don’t actually explain the specific function of not stating the “real rule” in any particular case.
By no means is it hard to give examples. Indeed, I did give several examples in an earlier comment.
As for reasons to keep the real rule unstated, they seem clear enough to me. I did not state them because I considered them too obvious to belabor… of course, it’s possible that I was wrong about this!
I can make my views of this explicit, if you like, but I don’t think I will be adding much to the understanding of signaling already common in this forum. In fact, I wonder if anyone else (perhaps one of the folks who liked or benefited from this post) would like to try their hand at explaining this? It would give me useful info about whether readers of this post understood it as I intended it to be understood (and would help to clarify the post for anyone confused, of course).
Personally, I hear the phrase “signaling” used often, but it’s starting to sound a little hollow. Who is signaling what, to whom, why, how do they know how it’s being perceived, how do we know this, and what else is going on? I demand specifics!
Quite reasonable. In that case, yes, I invite readers who enjoyed (and believe that they did properly understand) this post to say what they believe the answer to this question is.
If there aren’t any responses in, let us say, two weeks, then I will post my own explanation.
I think the point this post makes is right, both as a literal definition of what a rule is, and of how you should respond to the tendency to make “exceptions.” I prefer the notion of a “framework” to a rule, because it suggests that the rules can be flexible, layered, and only operating in specific contexts (where appropriate). For example, I’m trying to implement a set of rules about when I take breaks from work, but the rule “25 minutes on, 5 minutes off” only is valid when I’m actually at work.
My point of disagreement is the conclusion—that exceptions are primarily a form of self-signaling, a way to avoid being honest about the real rule.
I think instead people have a mistaken belief that you should be able to just declare a rule and stick to it, right away and without modification. They want to be healthy, so the first thought their mind floats is “don’t eat any cookies… EVER AGAIN!”
Well, the real rule they want to follow might be much more nuanced. But instead, they just observe themselves making a rule, then breaking it. “Exception” is just the word they use for a modification of the rule. That and “lack of willpower.”
So the issue isn’t so much one of honesty or self-signaling as a kludgy, ill-thought-out perspective on willpower.
I did not say “self-signaling”.
Note well that the idea of “the real rules have no exceptions” applies to rules that govern social groups and organizations and subcultures and societies just as much (if not more!) as it applies to rules made by a person to govern their own actions.
In that light, the signaling is not to oneself, but to others; and it is of great importance (as the rule-as-stated, clean and exception-free as it is, creates legitimacy, and the appearance of explicit structure and order). And for this reason also, the insight described in the OP is, in such contexts, subversive to the group and to those in power within it, because it is corrosive to the beliefs and behaviors that maintain the group’s cohesion and stability.
Let me rephrase my objection on this point. You explain the rules/exceptions dynamic as motivated by signaling. It’s hard to give examples, because you don’t actually explain the specific function of not stating the “real rule” in any particular case.
My explanation is different. I think that it’s that it’s difficult and contrary to common sense to explicitly state the real rule, with all its nuances and layers.
For example, it’s very easy to say “I’m gonna stop eating cookies.” Then it’s two months later, you eat a cookie, and you make an “exception” that it was OK because you’d been good for so long, or because they’re really good cookies, or whatever. It feels, in the moment, like an appropriate action, even though it violates your original rule.
Then you continue under the assumption that the rule is “I’m gonna stop eating cookies...” until you feel the time is right again to eat another cookie.
The reason you don’t specify the specific circumstances or timing for when it’s OK to eat cookies isn’t necessarily because you want to show yourself what a good dieter you are, or show other people.
It’s just that the idea that you’d explicitly specify the complete rule set seems hard, weird, and just doesn’t occur to most people.
I do think that signaling can enter in here, if people consider what it would look like to others to have some elaborate, constantly modified explicit ruleset for cookie-eating. That might be a factor weighing against it. People want to come across as having willpower, not being neurotic, having good healthy habits already, and being effortlessly successful.
There’s a big difference in explaining why it’s common sense not to create big complicated rulesets for behavior, and why any individual person avoids creating those rulesets.
I think for individuals, the reason is that it’s not common sense, and that even if it were, it’s often hard to think the problem through.
I think the reason why it’s not common sense in the first place does have more to do with signaling and attendant coordination problems. Is it polite to offer alcohol at parties? What if we know that one of the attendees is secretly a recovering alcoholic? Is it polite to refuse dessert if we’re trying to diet? Is it impolite to offer if we know somebody’s trying to diet?
By no means is it hard to give examples. Indeed, I did give several examples in an earlier comment.
As for reasons to keep the real rule unstated, they seem clear enough to me. I did not state them because I considered them too obvious to belabor… of course, it’s possible that I was wrong about this!
I can make my views of this explicit, if you like, but I don’t think I will be adding much to the understanding of signaling already common in this forum. In fact, I wonder if anyone else (perhaps one of the folks who liked or benefited from this post) would like to try their hand at explaining this? It would give me useful info about whether readers of this post understood it as I intended it to be understood (and would help to clarify the post for anyone confused, of course).
Personally, I hear the phrase “signaling” used often, but it’s starting to sound a little hollow. Who is signaling what, to whom, why, how do they know how it’s being perceived, how do we know this, and what else is going on? I demand specifics!
Quite reasonable. In that case, yes, I invite readers who enjoyed (and believe that they did properly understand) this post to say what they believe the answer to this question is.
If there aren’t any responses in, let us say, two weeks, then I will post my own explanation.