Blueberry comments on Missed opportunities for doing well by doing good - Less Wrong

10 Post author: multifoliaterose 21 July 2010 07:45AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (67)

Comments (67)

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

Comment author: Blueberry 22 July 2010 06:48:53PM 5 points [-]

Suppose that you are a woman's genes. You have a choice between two men. One is just an ordinary, eligible guy. The other has made a solemn lifelong commitment to give 50% of his wealth away to random strangers. Which sperm would you like to fertilize your egg with? Think about the kind of sons and grandsons that would be the result.

Such a commitment is a form of signalling, like a peacock's tail. Someone who manages to keep that commitment can afford to do so, signaling wealth.

Comment deleted 22 July 2010 07:19:28PM *  [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_M 22 July 2010 09:16:09PM *  3 points [-]

Roko:

I think so: from the female genes' point of view, conspicuous consumption signals selfishness, the desire to look after your own, whereas the charity signals sucker-ness -- the desire to help others who are not reciprocating.

It's much more complicated than that. By improper conspicuous consumption, you can easily end up signaling that you're a sucker. Even worse, you'll signal that you're the sort of sucker who's easy to separate from his money. You can probably imagine the possible consequences of that botched signal.

Generally speaking, effective conspicuous consumption is very difficult to pull off. This of course doesn't apply to the level of conspicuous consumption that you're expected to undertake to avoid coming off as a weirdo given your position in society, but anything beyond that is dangerously apt to backfire in a multitude of ways.

Comment deleted 22 July 2010 09:57:18PM *  [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_M 22 July 2010 10:50:37PM 0 points [-]

I was't attacking the point at issue. It just seemed worth pointing out as a digression.

Comment deleted 22 July 2010 11:03:27PM [-]
Comment author: Vladimir_M 23 July 2010 06:29:39AM *  1 point [-]

Regarding counter-signaling, I remember the "Too Cool for School" paper that was linked from Marginal Revolution a few years ago, along with the subsequent "False Modesty" paper that shares a co-author. These seem to be the standard references about the topic.

But more importantly, I don't think academic insight in this area gathered so far is particularly worthwhile. Before getting into complex mathematical models can be really fruitful, we first need an informal common-sense overview of the situation, in order to know where to look for situations that provide suitable material for more solid theories. Unfortunately, in this regard, even the most insightful people have made only baby steps so far.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit