DaFranker comments on You can't signal to rubes - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Patrick 01 January 2013 06:40AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (115)
Tags: signalling jargon

Comments (115)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 03 January 2013 05:10:11PM *  0 points [-]

The more I think about this, the less sure I am that I understand the distinction you're trying to draw here between "attempting to mimic a recognized dominance signal" and "a signalling behavior". Can you expand?

  • "Dominance signal" corresponds to actions which indicate to others (be they lower in status, equals or those higher in status) that the signaler that they are in charge. Dominance is almost entirely mediated by signalling.
  • "Attempting to mimic" in the context introduced by ialdabaoth indicates that the motive of the behavior is "signal to a particular target audience of superiors that one is dominant over subordinates despite in fact not being dominant over subordinates".
  • The distinction is between on one hand any "attempting to mimic a recognized dominance signal" and on the other the set of all signalling behaviors that is any one of "not about dominance", "not motivated to deceive some class of observer" or "actually indicates or causes dominance within the relevant hierarchy".

If mimicry absolutely must be dragged in to describe an aspect of the scenario then it could be said that "Managers who are unnecesarily hostile to their subordinates are attempting to mimic a recognized signal of competent leadership" or something similar. It would still be wrong as a point of human psychology but at least it wouldn't be fundamentally muddled thinking about signalling, mimicry and dominance.

Comment author: DaFranker 03 January 2013 05:28:53PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure this follows. I have had managers who displayed unnecessary hostility towards me when in front of their own superiors, but had no proper dominance or control over me to speak of.

In one case, I held said manager in the palm of my hands and tolerated the hostility in light of the fact that his display of dominance to his superior increased said superiors' allotment of resources to our team, which in turn made my own life easier and overall more enjoyable even after factoring out the hostility itself.

(for context, I had an indirect veto power over that manager: I could credibly threaten to quit, since I wasn't dependent on the job and had a guarantee of having a new one secured for me within a week, while they stood to lose some productivity by having to hire and train a new employee up to my skill level - they had a lot more to lose than me and the costs of hiring and training stood to be far higher than the costs of adjusting for minor demands on my part)

On the other hand, I'm slightly more inclined than usual to believe I'm misinterpreting you, given my current state of mind and (lack of) awareness.

Comment author: wedrifid 03 January 2013 05:52:18PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure this follows.

Note that my own assertion was (with emphasis added):

That isn't true (or at least doesn't follow).

I am not claiming that it is not ever possible to mimic dominance displays in some context without actually having dominance. I am claiming that using behaviors that actually successfully dominate is not mimicking dominance. Said dominance may in turn be done for the purpose of mimicking something else.

Comment author: DaFranker 03 January 2013 06:00:20PM 0 points [-]

I am not claiming that it is not ever possible to mimic dominance displays in some context without actually having dominance. I am claiming that using behaviors that actually successfully dominate is not mimicking dominance. Said dominance may in turn be done for the purpose of mimicking something else.

Ah, thanks. Oops.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit