I think the term âvirtue signallingâ is a most unfortunate creation. Maybe it started as a good idea, maybe it is a useful concept in some contexts, but every time Iâve heard it used, itâs 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 âvirtue signallingâ intend to signal by so doing? Ah, they say âvirtue signalâ 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? âŚjust stop. This isnât a productive way to think about life or about people. Itâs 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: âReally 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.â Lord have mercy. I know thatâs 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 canât be simplified as much as people want to simply them. I liked your example, âDo you believe in longtermismâyes or no?â I couldnât 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 âlongtermismâ, thatâs not exactly an endorsement of longtermism as a good idea. The yes/âno 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 â a gimmick, a novelty, a whimsical experiment with technology. That itâs become a deadly serious platform for public discourse is an absurdity.
I would be curious to read research about whatâs 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 canât say Iâm 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.
I think the term âvirtue signallingâ is a most unfortunate creation. Maybe it started as a good idea, maybe it is a useful concept in some contexts, but every time Iâve heard it used, itâs 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 âvirtue signallingâ intend to signal by so doing? Ah, they say âvirtue signalâ 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? âŚjust stop. This isnât a productive way to think about life or about people. Itâs 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: âReally 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.â Lord have mercy. I know thatâs 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 canât be simplified as much as people want to simply them. I liked your example, âDo you believe in longtermismâyes or no?â I couldnât 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 âlongtermismâ, thatâs not exactly an endorsement of longtermism as a good idea. The yes/âno 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 â a gimmick, a novelty, a whimsical experiment with technology. That itâs become a deadly serious platform for public discourse is an absurdity.
I would be curious to read research about whatâs 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 canât say Iâm 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.