= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Call for discussion: Signalling and/vs. accomplishment - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (12)
The question is not whether signalling is real, or whether signalling can be pro-social. (It is, and it can be).
Instead, I read the OP as raising the more meta-question of how we can tell useful signalling talk from hand-waving just-so-story signalling talk. I think everyone agrees that the later is not useful analysis. But there does not appear to be widespread agreement about how to tell the difference (or even if very much anti-insightful signalling talk even exists).
Well, one way to start is whenever someone proposes a signaling model ask the following question:
1) What is being signaled?
2) Why is the allegedly signaling behavior a credible signal, either now or in the EEA?
That's a great test of whether a model is actually a signalling model, but not so useful for determining whether any particular signalling model is insightful or true.