= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
army1987 comments on Mistakes repository - 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 (192)
If. That would imply that optimizing signals for "muggles" automatically sub-optimizes for "wizards".
And this is true for most values of wizard (goths, hippies, preps, nudists, professionals) but it's certainly not true when "wizards" = Intelligent, happy, kind, and effective people. You can signal allegiance to a subculture with a costume, but you can't signal a virtue.
There is no reliable superficial signal for hidden virtues and abilities which are both universally admired and difficult / impossible to acquire. If such a signal were to exist and become well known, it would immediately become fashionable and thereby lose its signaling properties.
The only honest signal for these traits is actual demonstrations of intelligence, kindness, etc...is actual displays of intellect, altruism, etc. As such, looking weirdly fancy isn't going to help you to that end. The way to surround yourself with smart/kind/effective people is to inhabit social spaces which attract smart/kind/effective people.
Smart/effective/kind people (especially the elder generations, who happen to be the most useful to impress) are often still prejudiced in all the usual ways though, so you might still alienate them with your appearance.
That's a really cold way to phrase that. I think that way sometimes, but only when I'm particularly unhappy or frustrated with people. The thought goes away when I remember that most people genuinely care about other people, and many care about me (Or to put it in game theory jargon, my preferences fundamentally overlap with most people's, and I consider agents who have those preferences intrinsically valuable).
What about being seen with lots of friends without looking like the kind of person who would get lots of friends regardless of intelligence, happiness, kindness and effectiveness? Countersignalling FTW!
Hehe, that is a clever/amusing idea. But even if it's true that this constitutes a meaningful signal (there are plenty of ways to get friends that do not involve intelligence, kindness, or effectiveness that leave no visual cues - like extroversion), it's a signal so subtle that I don't think I would pick up on it.
Edit: It would work for simpler things though - we wouldn't be as impressed with David's intelligence if his muscles were as large as Goliath's.
I would have counted extroversion as in the same reference class as intelligence, happiness, kindness and effectiveness.
My reference class was "traits I would want in a friend". I don't really care about how often my friends feel the need to be alone.
Extroversion is probably correlated with happiness - but then again, if we accept introversion-extroversion as intrinsic personality traits, who is to say that a lonely, socially awkard extrovert won't give the same test results as a sad introvert? Correlation(extroversion, income) supposedly has a inverse U shaped curve.
Actually, the truth is I don't pick friends based on raw happiness either...it was shorthand for general emotional maturity. I wouldn't want to be less friends with someone if they were depressed, for example - it's just that I don't want anger, anxiety, insecurity, and other sorts of aggression directed at me, and people who frequently experience negative emotions are more likely to direct aggression at others.