So, @Meaningness has been posting recently on the general theme that (to heavily abbreviate...) "virtue signalling" should not be condemned because it may not be separable from virtue itself. I even participated with a comment intended to say virtue signalling may be inevitable.
-
Show this thread
-
HOWEVER: I don't think virtue signalling is inseparable from virtue, and I think it often is okay to condemn it. The reason is that signals need to appear costly in order to be effective, and so there's a strong incentive for signals to be dishonest.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
The best kind of signal you can send is the one that is *not* costly for you, but that the receivers will believe is costly. For instance, signalling a difficult moral position without actually accepting the costs of living in accordance with that position.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
With such overwhelmingly strong incentives for virtue signals to be dishonest, it is inconcievable that at least a few of them wouldn't actually be dishonest. In fact, it seems reasonable that the large majority of virtue signals are dishonest.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
And everybody instinctively understands that. So, I think someone who condemns "virtue signalling" likely means to condemn *dishonest* virtue signalling, and means to be understood as saying that even if they leave out the word, and many listeners will understand it that way.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Note this may be why the word "just" often occurs immediately before the words "virtue signalling." "Are you just virtue signalling?" - meaning, are you sending the signal without incurring the costs of what's purportedly being signalled? Are you virtue-signalling dishonestly?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @mattskala
I agree with everything you’ve said here; if it seemed otherwise, my tweets were unclear. Often we do have mixed motivations, or do things just because they’re the done thing, without any specific motivation. But, yes, dishonest signaling is common and should be dissed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @mattskala
I suspect what is most annoying is not the dishonesty, though, but the smugness and the appearance of confidence of moral superiority. I suspect that usually actually hides panic that one will be perceived as insufficiently moral and/or confident by one’s in-group.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @mattskala
One of my pet theories is that one mechanism to increase the odds of a "dishonest" signal to be accepted is for the signaler to vehemently believe what they are saying and to be non-introspective to their behavior/signal inconsistencies.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That insight seems like it explains a lot!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.