4 ms·

I feel like rational communication requires an overlap in perspective - not the same point of view, but some amount of overlap. Science relies on rational comm

by csours 2y ago

I feel like rational communication requires an overlap in perspective - not the same point of view, but some amount of overlap. Science relies on rational communication between people who disagree, because we can fool ourselves, and we can fool our in-group. The narrative fallacy doesn't just affect weak minds; by yourself, you won't outsmart your own filters. To learn about the world, you have to accept the world, and some things about the world are hard to accept as bare facts. Donald Trump was elected president. Can you accept that as a bare fact? Probably not if you've fought with people about it. There's a drag show in town. Can you accept that as a bare fact? ... IQ tests have a history of racial disparity. ... The earth is round and orbits the sun. ... A lot of rational minded people tend to disparage emotional intelligence, but I feel that rational communication across strong moral feelings requires a lot of emotional work and trust, and it's really hard to trust while you are fighting. --- I feel like 'virtue signaling' is poorly named. I think 'Comfort Signaling' and 'Loyalty Signaling' are easier to talk and reason about. * I am flying this flag because I want my people to be comfortable with me. * I am flying this flag because I want my people to know that I am loyal to them, and I don't care about what other people think. (Or, I'm fine with the other people hating me because of this flag)

nonethewiser 2y ago
> I feel like 'virtue signaling' is poorly named. I think 'Comfort Signaling' and 'Loyalty Signaling' are easier to talk and reason about. > * I am flying this flag because I want my people to be comfortable with me. > * I am flying this flag because I want my people to know that I am loyal to them, and I don't care about what other people think. (Or, I'm fine with the other people hating me because of this flag) Why don't you think "virtue" signaling works for that? That's the same meaning.
- csours 2y ago
  Because I don't feel that the confederate battle flag is virtuous. Virtue signaling is done by people in every in-group; when it is done by people my in-group is fighting against Virtue Signaling does not feel like a virtue.
  - jbstjohn 2y ago
    The thing is, it's not just loyalty, it's also a 'better than only mid-level believers in the cause'. There's definitely a purity / piety aspect. I do like "piety" as it captures the religious aspect.
    - csours 2y ago
      I think that's a good addition. My main point is that it's not just one signal, and that 'virtue' carries too much emotional and moral freight. Maybe call them Signals of Virtues.
lowkeyoptimist 2y ago
It is 100% virtue signaling because it is used as a means to feel and show moral superiority to others that do not hold those views or 'virtues'. It is also a loyalty and comfort signal, but as we saw with Helmuth's reaction - it is impossible that Gen X saw fault with Harris' policies. It is only that they are bigoted, narrow minded, fascist loving, misogynist. If a 'virtue' is questioned, you are excommunicated from the 'liberal/ Democrat' party if you want to label it as such.
- csours 2y ago
  Yes, this is exactly why I don't like the term; it does not do a good job of describing intent as seen from the person in question.
UltraSane 2y ago
This comment started off really well with the need for successful communication requiring at least a partial overlap of of worldviews but then goes into the weeds with the comment about Trump. No one is denying that Trump won the election. But a huge percentage of Republicans believe that Trump actually won the last election. This is a real example of how worldviews on the right and left differ radically. The drag show is also a terrible example.
- csours 2y ago
  Those are examples of things that are hard for some to accept as bare facts. Person Y won the election Person Y won the election and that is BAD Person Y won the election and that is GOOD It is not a matter of denial, it is a matter of what story is made to accept the event. If you have not had to fight about the topic, you can just make the first bare assertion. The event happened. If you have fought about the topic and your central nervous system gets activated when you think about it, then the assertion will likely include moral judgement. The event didn't just happened, it happened for a good or bad reason.
  - UltraSane 2y ago
    Sorry but no one is denying that Trump won the 2024 election in the same way Trump and Republicans have denied that Biden won in 2020 and claiming such is very disingenuous. And saying person Y winning the election is good or bad is a matter of opinion, not fact.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      You are misunderstanding their point. They are not saying that anybody is denying the election results. A "bare fact", as they put it, is a statement exclusively of fact. Adding the qualifier to the fact makes it no longer a "bare fact". To use their example, "Snoop won the election," is a bare fact and, "Snoop won the election and that's bad," is not a bare fact. What they are saying is that some people cannot accept "bare fact" statements as such; they tend to add or expect some qualifier to the effect of "that's good" or "that's bad".

by csours 2y ago

nonethewiser 2y ago

> I feel like 'virtue signaling' is poorly named. I think 'Comfort Signaling' and 'Loyalty Signaling' are easier to talk and reason about. > * I am flying this flag because I want my people to be comfortable with me. > * I am flying this flag because I want my people to know that I am loyal to them, and I don't care about what other people think. (Or, I'm fine with the other people hating me because of this flag) Why don't you think "virtue" signaling works for that? That's the same meaning.

csours 2y ago
Because I don't feel that the confederate battle flag is virtuous. Virtue signaling is done by people in every in-group; when it is done by people my in-group is fighting against Virtue Signaling does not feel like a virtue.
- jbstjohn 2y ago
  The thing is, it's not just loyalty, it's also a 'better than only mid-level believers in the cause'. There's definitely a purity / piety aspect. I do like "piety" as it captures the religious aspect.
  - csours 2y ago
    I think that's a good addition. My main point is that it's not just one signal, and that 'virtue' carries too much emotional and moral freight. Maybe call them Signals of Virtues.

lowkeyoptimist 2y ago

It is 100% virtue signaling because it is used as a means to feel and show moral superiority to others that do not hold those views or 'virtues'. It is also a loyalty and comfort signal, but as we saw with Helmuth's reaction - it is impossible that Gen X saw fault with Harris' policies. It is only that they are bigoted, narrow minded, fascist loving, misogynist. If a 'virtue' is questioned, you are excommunicated from the 'liberal/ Democrat' party if you want to label it as such.

csours 2y ago
Yes, this is exactly why I don't like the term; it does not do a good job of describing intent as seen from the person in question.

UltraSane 2y ago

This comment started off really well with the need for successful communication requiring at least a partial overlap of of worldviews but then goes into the weeds with the comment about Trump. No one is denying that Trump won the election. But a huge percentage of Republicans believe that Trump actually won the last election. This is a real example of how worldviews on the right and left differ radically. The drag show is also a terrible example.

csours 2y ago
Those are examples of things that are hard for some to accept as bare facts. Person Y won the election Person Y won the election and that is BAD Person Y won the election and that is GOOD It is not a matter of denial, it is a matter of what story is made to accept the event. If you have not had to fight about the topic, you can just make the first bare assertion. The event happened. If you have fought about the topic and your central nervous system gets activated when you think about it, then the assertion will likely include moral judgement. The event didn't just happened, it happened for a good or bad reason.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  Sorry but no one is denying that Trump won the 2024 election in the same way Trump and Republicans have denied that Biden won in 2020 and claiming such is very disingenuous. And saying person Y winning the election is good or bad is a matter of opinion, not fact.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    You are misunderstanding their point. They are not saying that anybody is denying the election results. A "bare fact", as they put it, is a statement exclusively of fact. Adding the qualifier to the fact makes it no longer a "bare fact". To use their example, "Snoop won the election," is a bare fact and, "Snoop won the election and that's bad," is not a bare fact. What they are saying is that some people cannot accept "bare fact" statements as such; they tend to add or expect some qualifier to the effect of "that's good" or "that's bad".