4 ms·

> The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. There are different virtue

> The term "virtue signalling" is a derogatory term for something that every person does in pretty much every form of communication. There are different virtues though. A lot of online debate is between those who want to signal intelligence and those who want to signal morality. I'm on the former side, as intelligence signaling gave us civilization, while morality signaling is mostly about painting targets on people.

jessaustin 6y ago
Just as "virtue signalling" is not the same as virtue, "intelligence signalling" is not the same as intelligence. Some would say it's the latter that "gave us civilization".
- cousin_it 6y ago
  Sure, though signaling high intelligence could actually be the main use of intelligence, if it's a Fisherian runaway. And it's plausible that such use led to civilization: figuring out a beautiful theory feels purposeful in the same way as building a beautiful nest.
Chris2048 6y ago
Join a MENSA community and you'll soon see the vice of "intelligence signalling".
Intermernet 6y ago
In many ways, morality is an emergent phenomenon of intelligence. It takes intelligence to come up with nuclear / chemical / biological weapons, but it takes morality to avoid their use. You could say that this particular morality is based on game theory, but you could also say that people, in general, don't want to hurt other people. The reality is going to be some mish-mash of states between those two theories. Virtue signalling as a concept may be about advertising morality, but that morality is probably going to be informed by intelligence. Let's assume that in any given debate interaction each side starts with n points. If you "virtue signal" you gain zero points, if you make a fact based / logical argument you gain 2 points. If you make a non-fact based/ illogical argument, you lose 2 points, and if you make and ad-hominem / derogatory comment you lose 1 point. You can win this debate by a combination of insults and facts, but you'll win it faster without the insults. Conversely, you'll lose the debate really quickly by not presenting any facts / logic, and only resorting to insults.

jessaustin 6y ago

Just as "virtue signalling" is not the same as virtue, "intelligence signalling" is not the same as intelligence. Some would say it's the latter that "gave us civilization".

cousin_it 6y ago
Sure, though signaling high intelligence could actually be the main use of intelligence, if it's a Fisherian runaway. And it's plausible that such use led to civilization: figuring out a beautiful theory feels purposeful in the same way as building a beautiful nest.

Chris2048 6y ago

Join a MENSA community and you'll soon see the vice of "intelligence signalling".

Intermernet 6y ago

In many ways, morality is an emergent phenomenon of intelligence. It takes intelligence to come up with nuclear / chemical / biological weapons, but it takes morality to avoid their use. You could say that this particular morality is based on game theory, but you could also say that people, in general, don't want to hurt other people. The reality is going to be some mish-mash of states between those two theories. Virtue signalling as a concept may be about advertising morality, but that morality is probably going to be informed by intelligence. Let's assume that in any given debate interaction each side starts with n points. If you "virtue signal" you gain zero points, if you make a fact based / logical argument you gain 2 points. If you make a non-fact based/ illogical argument, you lose 2 points, and if you make and ad-hominem / derogatory comment you lose 1 point. You can win this debate by a combination of insults and facts, but you'll win it faster without the insults. Conversely, you'll lose the debate really quickly by not presenting any facts / logic, and only resorting to insults.