How to Virtue Signal the “Right” Way
I’m a participant/supporter/fan[1] of many “virtuous” movements (e.g., veganism, sustainability, effective altruism, and some “woke” social trends) but I’m often skeptical of my in-groups’ signaling tactics towards the out-groups.[2] Despite a tendency to ruffle feathers, I actually want these movements to succeed. I understand virtue signaling can help normalize pro-social (yet perhaps uncommon) behaviors [3] and it’s certainly better than vice signaling, which is becoming rampant among the sociopolitical right. However, I think the main danger of virtue signaling is precisely becoming so obnoxious to the out-group that they vice signal in return: “all lives matter”/white nationalism against BLM; “straight pride”/strict gender binarism against LGBTQ+; fanatical Zionism against “from the river to the sea;” carnivore diet against veganism.
As a community go-betweener who was born in poverty, lived in a hippie commune, went to school with nepo/trust fund babies, worked with conservative mega-donors, and dated partners anywhere from (self-proclaimed) communist to capitalist / libertarian to authoritarian, I am constantly adapting my signaling strategies towards a diverse audience. Here I compile my top takeaways on how to influence the out-groups more effectively. [4]
Show over tell
In this context, “tell” denotes prescriptive actions (whether verbal or not) whereas “show” denotes descriptive actions, i.e. how you live your life day-to-day. Using veganism as an example, “tell” can be protesting in a McDonald’s and urging the customers to go vegan and “show” can be cooking a vegan meal for friendsgiving while taking everyone’s preferences/restrictions into consideration. It’s easy to be turned off by someone yelling at you over your Big Mac, but it’s much easier to appreciate good food while listening to the cook talk about their (food) philosophy. This doesn’t mean you can/should never “tell” others what to do but the “telling” needs to complement and not replace the “showing.”
Nuance over quips/headlines
The vice-against-virtue signaling examples above are full of slogans. I believe quips invite counter-quips and kill nuance. While catchy phrases are unavoidable to popularize a movement, I think it’s best to refrain from one-liners when “telling” (see 1) others what to do. For instance, most pro-Israel groups interpret “from the river to the sea” as a call for Palestine to subsume Israel and thus deem it as antisemitic hate speech. I cannot say no pro-Palestine individuals use the phrase this way, yet I definitely know some Palestine supporters who don’t mean it this way (i.e., they’re calling for self-determination for all people in this region, Palestinians and Jews). When we get hung up on catchy phrases or only the headline of an idea (e.g., Do you believe in longtermism—yes or no?), we lose the chance to truly engage with each other on a solution/middle ground.
Concrete over conceptual
Anti-immigration people in my circles are never mean to me, an immigrant in all countries I’ve lived in since 15. Even racist people happily go to immigrant-run restaurants and receive immigrant-provided services. They may genuinely think “most Diego’s are criminals that should not be allowed in my country but my plumber Diego is an honest and hard-working man.” Humanizing the beneficiaries of the social cause (with real examples because generic “Mr. Mexican,” or if you’re Chuck Schumer, “The Baileys,” doesn’t exist) wins you half the battle and makes it literally inhumane to counter with vice signaling. This step is even more important when we advocate for sentient beings that aren’t humans.
Destination over journey
The outcome matters more than the method when promoting social causes (i.e., you want the beneficiaries to actually benefit), so emphasize why the outcome is desirable and tailor the reasoning to the out-group. For instance, assure your neighbor that the plumber Diego offers the best service at the best price and you’ll be bringing him more income + respect without needing to mention (though you still can mention) how hard it was for his family to cross the border. If animal welfare activists could have convinced DeSantis that lab-grown meat is a crucial part of the US food self-sufficiency and security strategy (US is a net-importer in agriculture generally as well as in beef specifically), then no slaughterhouse footage or EA talk would be required to pave the way for a future where lab-grown meat becomes so economical and nutritious (maybe with the help of AI) that there is no reason for factory farming.
Agency over patronization/sycophancy
When influencing the out-group, it’s most effective to build rapport and communicate on an equal footing rather than being overly obsequious (rarely a failure mode among EAs from my observation, but definitely among the performative feminist males) or overly condescending (I sometimes observe this failure mode among EAs). What you’re influencing others to do may objectively be better than what they’re currently doing, yet the higher goal of influencing is to make the audience internalize that the option you’re presenting is also subjectively better and that they’re enacting their full agency to take it.
- ^
As per Matt’s analogy to sports fans in his “12 Theses on EA.”
- ^
I wrote about some issues I had with EA’s signaling around the 10% pledge in a previous post. This post only tackles the in-group’s signaling to the out-group and not how in-group members signal to each other, which could become toxic in a different way.
- ^
Thanks to @Kevin Xia 🔸 for directing me to this article.
- ^
I’m choosing to include some examples beyond EA to illustrate a wider applicability.
I think the term “virtue signalling” is a most unfortunate creation. Maybe it started as a good idea, maybe it is a useful concept in some contexts, but every time I’ve heard it used, it’s intended to do only one thing: accuse someone of faking a conscience rather than having a conscience. The term has made us a little more cynical and mean, or at least given us another tool to be cynical and mean with.
Conversations about signalling can quickly get ridiculous. What does the person who uses “virtue signalling” intend to signal by so doing? Ah, they say “virtue signal” to signal that they are savvy and sophisticated, and not easily fooled. But, wait, what am I signalling by pointing this out? And what am I signalling by pointing out that I might be signalling something by pointing it out? …just stop. This isn’t a productive way to think about life or about people. It’s just cynicism!
The blogger Ozy Brennan wrote an article about dysfunctional groups in the Bay Area rationalist subculture and one interviewee gave this wild example: “Really tense ten-hour conversations about whether, when you ate the last chip, that was a signal that you were intending to let down your comrades in selfish ways in the future.” Lord have mercy. I know that’s an extreme example, but I feel like conversations on the EA Forum are a little bit like that sometimes.
Anyway, all that said, I think this post is only a little bit about virtue signalling or signalling in general, and is actually mostly about how to talk about moral issues. For example, when you described people vice signalling in response to virtue signalling, is that not more simply and accurately described as a backlash to a social movement? (What does signalling have to do with it?)
I agree with your point that some things can’t be simplified as much as people want to simply them. I liked your example, “Do you believe in longtermism—yes or no?” I couldn’t give a simple yes or no to this. My view is that longtermist arguments about existential risk make a lot of sense, but no other practical action based on longtermist concerns seems possible. Since longtermist arguments about existential risk predate the term “longtermism”, that’s not exactly an endorsement of longtermism as a good idea. The yes/no binary is too simple for many other ideas. A way I like to put is that 1 bit is not enough information.
I agree that quips and slogans are overused on Twitter. Twitter is sort of the elephant in the room of our culture, the thing casting a shadow over us. Twitter has had a remarkable role in shaping how people think and talk, how they see the world, and how they treat each other. All for the worse.
Twitter started as a delightfully trivial amusement — a gimmick, a novelty, a whimsical experiment with technology. That it’s become a deadly serious platform for public discourse is an absurdity.
I would be curious to read research about what’s most effective when you want to persuade people of a moral idea. I remember years ago there was a study about knocking on doors to do LGBT rights advocacy and found it was effective to just give people a chance to talk, be non-confrontationsl and not overly evangelical. I would be curious to see what else is out there similar to that study.
I can’t say I’m really good at convincing anyone of anything, or that I know how to talk to people about morality and politics. But this is something important to know.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important topic! I enjoyed reading it, and I loved the reference to the supporter/fan framework from Mjreard.
My feelings: the EA community is somewhat better than average at 1-2, most definitely better at 4 in certain cases (and I think cultivated meat is a good example, as EA circles very often argue for it on non-animal welfare grounds). I agree that 5 is an EA failure mode (I’m on the obsequious / sycophant side, I’m a bit cowardly and think being “fully transparent” about your values often leads to unproductive conflict), and 3 is something where improvement could be made (though it’s hard-ish for longtermist causes, or even when you care about animals—heck, even discussing the welfare of cute mice seems to backfire).
Again, this is an important topic, since how we influence others positively could have a large impact, and taking a few hours to think about how to do it right is certain worth it.
Zoe actually said the opposite:
But I also misread her at first in the same you did, so maybe that means something.
I think there’s actually a mix of both problems in EA when it comes to talking about EA to people outside EA (which is the context Zoe was talking about). There are people being overly indirect or sheepish, and people being too combative and rude. I don’t think the solution is to “balance” the two, as if they exist on a number line, but something more complex. Which is how to be both confident and forthright, on the one hand, and respectful and gentle, on the other hand.