pjeby comments on Two Truths and a Lie - Less Wrong

59 Post author: Psychohistorian 23 December 2009 06:34AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (66)
Tags: overconfidence applied death_spirals verification

Comments (66)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pjeby 22 June 2012 12:14:27AM 0 points [-]

The evolutionary/signaling explanation is distinct from the rewards/conditioning explanation, because the former says that people are predisposed to engage in behaviors that were good signaling in the ancestral environment whether or not they are rewarded today.

As a practical matter of evolution, signal-detection has to evolve before signal-generation, or there's no benefit to generating the signal. And evolution likes to reuse existing machinery, e.g. reinforcement.

In practice, human beings also seem to have some sort of "sociometer" or "how other people probably see me", so signaling behavior can be reinforcing even without others' direct interaction.

It's very unparsimonious to assume that specific human signaling behaviors are inborn, given that there are such an incredible number of such behaviors in use. Much easier to assume that signal detection and self-reflection add up to standard reinforcement, as signal-detection and self-reflection are independently useful, while standalone signaling behaviors are not.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 22 June 2012 12:25:42AM 1 point [-]

As a practical matter of evolution, signal-detection has to evolve before signal-generation, or there's no benefit to generating the signal

Er?
This seems to preclude cases where pre-existing behaviors are co-opted as signals.
Did you mean to preclude such cases?

Comment author: pjeby 22 June 2012 01:39:47AM 1 point [-]

This seems to preclude cases where pre-existing behaviors are co-opted as signals. Did you mean to preclude such cases?

Bleah. I notice that I am confused. Or at least, confusing. ;-)

What I was trying to say was that there's no reason to fake (or enhance) a characteristic or behavior until after it's being evaluated by others. So the evolutionary process is:

  1. There's some difference between individuals that provides useful information
  2. A detector evolves to exploit this information
  3. Selection pressure causes faking of the signal

This process is also repeated in memetic form, as well as genetic form. People do a behavior for some reason, people learn to use it to evaluate, and then other people learn to game the signal.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 22 June 2012 01:53:56AM 1 point [-]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, that makes sense.

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 25 June 2012 01:43:40AM 0 points [-]

It is very unparsimonious to assume that specific human signaling behaviors are inborn, given that there are such an incredible number of such behaviors in use.

I agree that the vast majority of specific human behaviors, signaling or otherwise are learned, not in-born, as an Occam prior would suggest. That does not, however, mean that all signaling behaviors are learned. Many animals have instinctual mating rituals, and it would be quite surprising if the evolutionary pressures that enable these to develop in other species were entirely absent in humans.

Much easier to assume that signal detection and self-reflection add up to standard reinforcement, as signal-detection and self-reflection are independently useful, while standalone signaling behaviors are not.

I would expect signaling to show up both in reinforced behaviors and in the rewards themselves (the feeling of having signaled a given trait could feel rewarding). Again, most are probably behaviors that have been rewarded or learned memetically, but given the large and diverse signaling behaviors, the more complex explanation probably applies to some (but not most) of them.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit