= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pjeby comments on On the Openness personality trait & 'rationality' - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (95)
The costly signaling here is social, not health. That is, it's signaling what group(s) you ally yourself with, and the cost is what groups you thereby pit yourself against.
That doesn't seem like an appropriate use of the term; any signal of allegiance could do the same. Interpreting costly signalling so broadly robs it of its usefulness as jargon.
It seems to me that Miller really is saying that we treat memes that are high on the openness scale as risk factors on an unconscious level, and the evidence excerpted here isn't enough to disabuse my skepticism of that.
Joining a small group as opposed to a large one may be costly signalling - "My genes are good enough that I don't need so many allies"
It is not inconceivable but I would still bet against it. I would attribute any benefits to joining small groups to any exclusivity that the group, enhanced cooperation within a small group or some innate reason for more potential cooperation with those people than with others.
As would I; from what limited observational evidence I have, it seems far more a matter of wanting to be in-group for the people already in that group than anything more meta. It just doesn't seem outright inconceivable.