Instead of reading this post and thinking, “Ooh, almost everything I do is signaling in some way”, I think, “why would I want to call almost everything I do signaling”?
I resuggest the outside-Less-Wrong definition for signaling: signaling is something that you consciously do; in particular, something you do to deliberately project a message about yourself. Importantly, it might be a sincere message or it could be insincere. Any messages that you send subconsciously, instead, is a sincere message. I prefer this definition because it jives with subjective experience: only conscious actions can be insincere, and what we really mean by signaling, as compared to just plain old communication, is “possibly insincere communication”.
I do understand where Robin Hanson is coming from, however, with the following, true observation:
the details of many of our behaviors make sense as a package designed to persuade others to think well of us. While we may not be conscious of this design, it seems important nonetheless.
I would just like to propose a different model for this observation. I suggest that everything that was being labeled as ‘signaling’ in the previous broad definition (i.e., everything but picking your nose) originally did begin at some point as conscious, deliberate signaling. However, as Adelene observes, conscious signaling is mentally computationally expensive. Also there is the problem that your signal won’t be perceived as sincere. As a workaround for this, throughout our lives, we internalize the values behind the signaling, as long as they don’t disagree too much with what we “really think”. More precisely: I propose that there is some function which compares (a) the effort required to consciously signal something and the risk of signaling insincerely and (b) the cost to “self” for internalizing the signal. If (a) outweighs (b), then the signal becomes internalized and becomes a sincere part of yourself, and if (b) outweighs (a), then the person continues to remain aloof from what they are signaling.
I’ll give examples of both. I think the usefulness of the model can be tested by the extent to which it correctly partitions any behavior into whether we’d like to call it “signaling” or “sincere”.
A case where (b) outweighs (a): someone who is homosexual knows that it is important to signal being straight in certain social situations. (Or at least, to not signal that they’re not heterosexual.) However, internalizing that they are heterosexual would cause way too much compromise of self, and the signaling remains conscious and external.
Where (a) outweighs (b): When I was in middle school, it was very important to signal something by wearing brand name clothes. Over those years, I internalized the belief that it is worthwhile to pay more for higher quality clothes. I don’t really think this is a justified belief, but it is sincere belief in that I would prefer to wear high quality clothes even if everyone on the planet disappeared. What I did was find common ground for the socially required value and my own values (I inherently value beauty) and internalized the dot-product: I apply aesthetic preference to clothing, even though, absent society, I would probably be more utilitarian about clothing.
The reason why this type of model is more useful than just saying ‘everything is signaling’ is because I think the broader definition of signaling incorrectly implies that your sincere self is the self you would be with absolutely no social interaction. This is kind of like saying that “Tarzan” is a more authentic human. (Except not even, because even Tarzan internalized ways of signaling that he was a monkey.)
Instead of reading this post and thinking, “Ooh, almost everything I do is signaling in some way”, I think, “why would I want to call almost everything I do signaling”?
I resuggest the outside-Less-Wrong definition for signaling: signaling is something that you consciously do; in particular, something you do to deliberately project a message about yourself. Importantly, it might be a sincere message or it could be insincere. Any messages that you send subconsciously, instead, is a sincere message. I prefer this definition because it jives with subjective experience: only conscious actions can be insincere, and what we really mean by signaling, as compared to just plain old communication, is “possibly insincere communication”.
I do understand where Robin Hanson is coming from, however, with the following, true observation:
I would just like to propose a different model for this observation. I suggest that everything that was being labeled as ‘signaling’ in the previous broad definition (i.e., everything but picking your nose) originally did begin at some point as conscious, deliberate signaling. However, as Adelene observes, conscious signaling is mentally computationally expensive. Also there is the problem that your signal won’t be perceived as sincere. As a workaround for this, throughout our lives, we internalize the values behind the signaling, as long as they don’t disagree too much with what we “really think”. More precisely: I propose that there is some function which compares (a) the effort required to consciously signal something and the risk of signaling insincerely and (b) the cost to “self” for internalizing the signal. If (a) outweighs (b), then the signal becomes internalized and becomes a sincere part of yourself, and if (b) outweighs (a), then the person continues to remain aloof from what they are signaling.
I’ll give examples of both. I think the usefulness of the model can be tested by the extent to which it correctly partitions any behavior into whether we’d like to call it “signaling” or “sincere”.
A case where (b) outweighs (a): someone who is homosexual knows that it is important to signal being straight in certain social situations. (Or at least, to not signal that they’re not heterosexual.) However, internalizing that they are heterosexual would cause way too much compromise of self, and the signaling remains conscious and external.
Where (a) outweighs (b): When I was in middle school, it was very important to signal something by wearing brand name clothes. Over those years, I internalized the belief that it is worthwhile to pay more for higher quality clothes. I don’t really think this is a justified belief, but it is sincere belief in that I would prefer to wear high quality clothes even if everyone on the planet disappeared. What I did was find common ground for the socially required value and my own values (I inherently value beauty) and internalized the dot-product: I apply aesthetic preference to clothing, even though, absent society, I would probably be more utilitarian about clothing.
The reason why this type of model is more useful than just saying ‘everything is signaling’ is because I think the broader definition of signaling incorrectly implies that your sincere self is the self you would be with absolutely no social interaction. This is kind of like saying that “Tarzan” is a more authentic human. (Except not even, because even Tarzan internalized ways of signaling that he was a monkey.)