7 ms·

This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as: - Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in

This is almost textbook countersignalling. The same as: - Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here

bonoboTP 8mo ago
On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.
- crassus_ed 8mo ago
  >Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing. Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?
  - bonoboTP 8mo ago
    Not necessarily but it carries less weight than pre-LLMS. Obviously it's just a heuristic and not the whole story and telltale AI signs are not purely about good spelling and grammar. But I just appreciate some natural, human texture in my correspondence these days.
  - tryauuum 8mo ago
    a vocabulary of certain width raises a question "does this creature understand the words it is using?". So yeah I mistrust them more
  - coldtea 8mo ago
    >Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default? Yes, people, in general, do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs
    - nine_k 8mo ago
      I'd say, not "people in general" but people form other socioeconomic strata. This guy is not talking like us, suspicious. He talks in an elaborate and thought-through manner, not simply, so, he's not candid, double suspicious!
      - basilikum 8mo ago
        I'm personally suspicious of anyone using the word candid.
  - irishcoffee 8mo ago
    > Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default? I don't trust anyone who doesn't use swear words, does that count?
- antonchekhov 8mo ago
  If this becomes the prevailing inclination amongst most readers, Janan Ganesh (one of my most favorite commentators anywhere) at the Financial Times will have a dim professional future.
- robocat 8mo ago
  > Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human Except that this signal is now being abused. People add into the prompts requesting a few typos. And requesting an informal style. There was a guy complaining about AI generated comments on substack, where the guy had noticed the pattern of spelling mistakes in the AI responses. It is common enough now. But yes, typos do match the writer - you can still notice certain mistakes that a human might make that an AI wouldn't generate. Humans are good at catching certain errors but not others, so there is a large bias in the mistakes they miss. And keyboard typos are different from touch autoincorrection. AI generated typos have their own flavour.
  - Terr_ 8mo ago
    Yeah, I'd argue a large portion of what LLMs are being used for can be characterized as "counterfeiting" traditionally-useful signals. Signals that told us there was another human on the other side of the conversation, that they were attentive, invested, smart, empathizing, etc. Counterfeiting was possible before, but it had a higher bar because you had to hire a ghostwriter.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences That's because it's their PhDs that did the actual work...
- Lerc 8mo ago
  >research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. Obviously no errors Vs no obvious errors, in a nutshell.
- swexbe 8mo ago
  Muddying the water to make it seem deep.
- threatofrain 8mo ago
  > It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing. But... you know that this moment will be so fleeting as one can trivially generate mistakes to look human.
- array_key_first 8mo ago
  Informal or conversational tone has always been the gold-standard for most communications. People just piss on it because they like to feel smart. But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.
  - Terr_ 8mo ago
    > But, most writing has purpose. Over the years, I've become an odd fan of documents that start with a "purpose of this document" section. Sure, it seems weirdly bureaucratic at first, but as time goes on, you start seeing documents that don't really know what their focus is anymore, because different authors decided it was the least-bad place to dump their own guide, checklist, or opinions. L for example, imagine four documents about an API: A how-to guide; fine implementation details; a diagnostic checklist; a primer for executives or salespeople considering it as a product.
    - kstrauser 8mo ago
      I've gotten in the writing habit of BLUF, Bottom Line Up Front: "Hey boss, I think we should use this vendor. [4 paragraphs with charts and formulas explaining why that's the only rational choice]" The way readers parse this is "the sender thinks we should do this thing, and oh, now that I have that idea implanted in my brain, wow, they sure have a lot of supporting evidence! OK, fine, let's do it." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
- netsharc 8mo ago
  A friend of mine (non-native English speaker) said she's been talking to a guy (also non-native) on a dating app. She said he was very articulate and showed me some screenshots. One sentence he sent was "Family is paramount for you.". I told her "I bet you he's using ChatGPT"..
- MichaelDickens 8mo ago
  > On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. I often find that to be true. Another important factor is that research skill is correlated with writing skill. Someone who's at the top of their field is likely to be talented in other ways, too, and one such talented is making complex topics easier to understand.
- hungryhobbit 8mo ago
  Have you actually read a research paper, ever? They are FILLED with jargon (that just as easily could be an ordinary English word instead) ... and giant paragraphs made up of ten sentences all combined into one with semi-colons ... and with all sorts of other butchering of the English language. Scientific research papers follow their own grammar, which is specific to the research community ... and that grammar is atrocious!
  - bonoboTP 8mo ago
    Most papers are badly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.
- bonoboTP 8mo ago
  Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling. An honest signal doesn't always take effort. In fact it's the tryhard imitators that have to expend effort emulating this. The real deal is effortless and comes naturally. The silverback gorilla can come across as scary and formidable even when its just lazing around not trying to look intimidating. It's just big, without spending thought cycles on having to appear big, but the others still recognize it.
  - apsurd 8mo ago
    There is the "I don't (have to) give a fuck" counter-signaling. But also what about people that really don't care too much, out of ignorance even, or just fatigue. Sure there is intentionality in there, but do we really call that _counter-signaling_?
    - bonoboTP 8mo ago
      They can try it and sometimes it works, but generally it's hard to imitate well. You have to not give a fuck about the right things. The imitators who just don't give a fuck about anything will stumble on something genuinely important. Like the cool guy at school who doesn't give a fuck about what the teachers say will have to give a fuck about his friends and the community around him, to the skills that he gets his coolness from to preserve his status. A boss who sends informal messages should still give a fuck about the overall state of the team, on being timely to respond to actually important matters even if just giving a quick ok sent from my iPhone. The countersignaling is more about "I care about/provide more important things that are more valuable or impactful for you than getting caught up in bullshit insignificant superficial matters"
engineer_22 8mo ago
In my line of work we have professionals and lay people in contact with each other often, and I have found I get the best reaction (from all audiences) when I square myself away. Untidy dress isn't immediately disqualifying, but if it's enough to be noticeable it's enough to deserve an explanation.
PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago
I told this story about the old man in his 70s walking through a plant, giving his multi-decades expertise in how to solve our foam problems. Everyone else wore a polo... This guy genuinely didn't care. He was making $500/hr and didn't really want to be there. He was begged. He did some weird stuff with sticky notes on $100k molds... (and he didn't solve our problem). But you knew this guy was an expert.
stronglikedan 8mo ago
There's also: - No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.
- coldtea 8mo ago
  Still signalling. People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not. They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.
  - zephen 8mo ago
    > They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case. Unless you're Sherlock Holmes, or know the person and their wardrobe intimately, you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. Reddit and quora are littered with stories about car salesmen misreading what they thought were signals, and missing out on big sales. The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick.
    - decimalenough 8mo ago
      > you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. You're conflating actual value with perceived value. It's well established that perceptions matter and people make decisions based on this all the time. > The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life. No, it resonates because it's a feel good story. I'm sure it happens, but most of the time signaling is perfectly accurate. If you don't believe me, exchange clothes with a homeless person and try to go shopping on Rodeo Drive.
      - WalterBright 8mo ago
        I remember wandering into Cartier's in NYC dressed in my shaggy jeans and t-shirt. They didn't throw me out, but a security guard followed me around, definitely edging into my personal space to make me uncomfortable. I laughed, said I get it, looked a bit more, and left. I remember the days when you were expected to wear a suit on a jet, even the kids. These days, even the first class travelers wear track shorts. I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code.
ktm5j 8mo ago
I used to dress down at work because that's how everyone else dressed and I just wanted to fit in. But at some point I stopped doing that because I was caring way too much about what other people were thinking. I dress nice because I like it. It makes me feel good about myself, but has nothing to do with compensating.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  People react differently towards me depending on how I dress. It's quite noticeable. The sensible thing to do is take advantage of it.
  - marcosdumay 8mo ago
    And the best way to take advantage may be by unmasking the people that are incompetent enough to not assess others competence by looking at their work, and instead just look at their clothes. But well, it's context sensitive.
    - WalterBright 8mo ago
      Yes, I hear that a lot. Might as well push on a rope, though. In my early career years, a fellow employee came to work in track shorts and flip flops. He was a very, very good programmer. But he never got raises, and never got promoted, and complained to me about it. I suggested it was the way he dressed. He said the same things you wrote. A couple decades later, I ran into him again at a conference. He ran his own quite successful company. He also was dressed sharply. Things that make you go hmmm....
      - marcosdumay 8mo ago
        > He also was dressed sharply. As I said, it's context sensitive. Personally, I stopped dressing nicely at work after way too many people assumed I'd throw ethics at the trash and do what they say for the hint of a small promotion. Weirdly, that never stopped the people that actually wanted to do things from talking with me. But if you are talking to (potential) customers, the calculation is completely different.
gzread 8mo ago
[dead]
tamimio 8mo ago
This is an accurate analysis, as in “I’m the boss here and while you have to abide by whatever social norms or internal policies, I don’t because I’m better than all of you”.
mh2266 8mo ago
“Ratty old” and “formal” are not the only options. I dress mostly in techwear brands like Veilance, Outlier, and ACRNM, which is not ratty and old but is also very much not formal or uncomfortable.
- tanjtanjtanj 8mo ago
  I don’t think parent implied that that are the only options, they just gave examples that can fit into categories. Did you mean to add where your expensive polyester blend clothing lands on the spectrum they were illustrating?
LAC-Tech 8mo ago
It's not counter signalling. It's just the complete death of high culture. Hoodies aren't some statement about how you're too cool to care, it's just that no one cares to look good.
- WalterBright 8mo ago
  The newspaper ran an article about some high school kids who were on strike (!) because they didn't like the dress code. The article include a picture. They all dressed like complete slobs. I couldn't understand why they cared about the dress code.
- sillywabbit 8mo ago
  Hoodies are very comfortable.
  - LAC-Tech 8mo ago
    So are pyjamas, or a muumuu, or underwear.
- senordevnyc 8mo ago
  It's just the complete death of high culture. Good riddance.
Lerc 8mo ago
There was an episode of Orphan Black where they were going to impersonate a billionaire. The guy turns up in a suit and gets told, 'A billionaire, not a millionaire, go and put some shorts on'
ahartman00 8mo ago
Using this logic, all of the homeless people are counter signaling then. And there are plenty of executives who wear suits. Also signaling has one l, so thus you are signaling your importance. Or maybe you just can't assume you know what's going on inside someone else's head.
- monster_truck 8mo ago
  That's uh, not how this works. That's not how any of this works
- bpavuk 8mo ago
  there is a good saying in Slavic culture bubble - "to stretch an owl onto globe" (натянуть сову на глобус) - which means "to overly extrapolate". congratulations, so far it's the biggest globe I saw a poor owl stretched onto :)
- card_zero 8mo ago
  What illogical speling.
- kmijyiyxfbklao 8mo ago
  I don't think it counts as counter-signaling if can call him out.
- sheept 8mo ago
  just to note, signaling has two L's in UK spelling
- crazygringo 8mo ago
  No... you have to actually be important to countersignal with your clothing. And yes, those plenty of executives are precisely in the "no signaling" category. Mere executives don't get to countersignal with their clothing in such a visible way. Majority owners do.
spiritplumber 8mo ago
I'm just glad ties are gone. I used to have it in my consulting contract that I would wear a tie for a maximum of x hours for the duration of the project, so choose them well. It used to be a point of negotiation, now nobody cares anymore.
- NoGravitas 8mo ago
  If a tie is uncomfortable, the problem isn't the tie, it's that your shirt doesn't fit.
wakawaka28 8mo ago
Everybody is signalling, especially the people who think they aren't. We could sit here all day and game out all the possible interpretations that could be made from anyone's appearance, with respect to who they actually are, and it won't change much. My take on it all: Programmers and other hot shot types often eschew formalities and conventions for dress and such, as a way of asserting status. "I'm professional and important enough to assert that my preferences supersede the ordinary" is what they want to signal. Of course, some are just childish enough to insist that dress codes don't matter in the slightest, and everyone must put up with their goofy graphic t-shirts. Others are willing to tolerate that stuff because most programmers are not customer-facing. But they still look like adult children when they insist on that crap.
Aloisius 8mo ago
It reads like textbook mind reading to me. The author does not actually know why people write with poor spelling/grammar nor truly how others would interpret them writing with with poor spelling/grammar. They have a guess, but there are any number of alternate reasons why someone might write poorly. They could be technologically illiterate, fat fingered, easily frustrated, mirroring their children, need glasses, careless or any other number of reasons. The only way to find out is to ask. Engaging in mind reading is fraught with danger. You're more likely to project your own own mood, stereotypes, behavior or beliefs on to others than actually guess what someone's thinking.
- NoGravitas 8mo ago
  I think it's less mind-reading than looking for a sociological explanation. That said, I think a big underlying cause is that Business Idiots [1] are, in fact, idiots. Even so, it's worth looking for a sociological explanation of why Being An Idiot doesn't hurt Business Idiots like it would hurt the rest of us. [1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
zharknado 8mo ago
Alternative hypothesis—-efficiency. Executives are very, very busy. As long as you can figure out what they mean, polish doesn’t add much. (Unless it does because it’s an earnings call, board meeting, etc.) I’m quite convinced in most cases they are not spending time or energy consciously choosing to signal anything about status. They’re just not willing to pay the opportunity cost of keeping their attention on an internal communication any longer than the minimum required. They’re certainly capable of polished communication, but deploy that skill selectively when the return on investment is high. It’s a classic rookie pitfall to over-index on form instead of content (guilty myself many times). It’s more instructive to pay attention to which questions and ideas powerful people focus on than the forms they use to deliver them (which are not as important, turns out).
- Spivak 8mo ago
  Signaling happens whether you choose to do it on purpose or bo not. The people who are best at it don't do intentionally. The busy CEO is signaling status with this form of writing, they're so important and so many people demand their time that they have to skip on polish. That's the definition of status.
- jgwil2 8mo ago
  The examples in the article are conspicuously unpolished. Autocorrect catches all of this stuff nowadays. Somebody had to make an effort to write that badly.
jiggawatts 8mo ago
I’ve seen an fascinating paper (sorry, lost the url) that expanded on this using game theory: it’s common for “economic stratification” to have on the order of ten to fifteen levels, from abject poverty up to hundred-billionaires. Look at it this way: there are five orders of magnitude between a “mere” ten-millionaire and the likes of Elon or Bezos! To most people that’s the “same” level of rich, but each factor of ten is dramatically richer! However, signals like “purposefully disheveled” and “well manicured” are essentially binary, so… they’re alternated. Each strata layer of factor of ten indicates this by flipping whatever the layer is doing below them. They won’t be confused with “two layers down” because that’s such a gulf that nobody will misunderstand.
- jvandreae 8mo ago
  I believe this is touched upon in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/
jpfromlondon 8mo ago
- Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here In old-money settings all three of these things can be true simultaneously, dressing more formally than people outside, just like everyone else inside (in fact expected, to indicate familiarity with the standards of class, and often worn, ratty, old, and comfortable.
freggi 8mo ago
I don’t think it’s counter-signaling- I think it’s just millenialism, even if it’s done by people in other generations just mimicking them. As a gen-X, I’d never send a bunch of crying emojis, and agree it’s unprofessional, but my millenial co-workers would do it.

bonoboTP 8mo ago

On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. But to expand on the spelling topic, good spelling and grammar is now free with AI tools. It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing.

crassus_ed 8mo ago
>Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing. Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default?
- bonoboTP 8mo ago
  Not necessarily but it carries less weight than pre-LLMS. Obviously it's just a heuristic and not the whole story and telltale AI signs are not purely about good spelling and grammar. But I just appreciate some natural, human texture in my correspondence these days.
- tryauuum 8mo ago
  a vocabulary of certain width raises a question "does this creature understand the words it is using?". So yeah I mistrust them more
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default? Yes, people, in general, do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gjWlW0kRs
  - nine_k 8mo ago
    I'd say, not "people in general" but people form other socioeconomic strata. This guy is not talking like us, suspicious. He talks in an elaborate and thought-through manner, not simply, so, he's not candid, double suspicious!
    - basilikum 8mo ago
      I'm personally suspicious of anyone using the word candid.
- irishcoffee 8mo ago
  > Isn’t this a bit short sighted? So if someone has a wide vocabulary and uses proper grammar, you mistrust them by default? I don't trust anyone who doesn't use swear words, does that count?
antonchekhov 8mo ago
If this becomes the prevailing inclination amongst most readers, Janan Ganesh (one of my most favorite commentators anywhere) at the Financial Times will have a dim professional future.
robocat 8mo ago
> Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human Except that this signal is now being abused. People add into the prompts requesting a few typos. And requesting an informal style. There was a guy complaining about AI generated comments on substack, where the guy had noticed the pattern of spelling mistakes in the AI responses. It is common enough now. But yes, typos do match the writer - you can still notice certain mistakes that a human might make that an AI wouldn't generate. Humans are good at catching certain errors but not others, so there is a large bias in the mistakes they miss. And keyboard typos are different from touch autoincorrection. AI generated typos have their own flavour.
- Terr_ 8mo ago
  Yeah, I'd argue a large portion of what LLMs are being used for can be characterized as "counterfeiting" traditionally-useful signals. Signals that told us there was another human on the other side of the conversation, that they were attentive, invested, smart, empathizing, etc. Counterfeiting was possible before, but it had a higher bar because you had to hire a ghostwriter.
coldtea 8mo ago
>On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences That's because it's their PhDs that did the actual work...
Lerc 8mo ago
>research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. Obviously no errors Vs no obvious errors, in a nutshell.
swexbe 8mo ago
Muddying the water to make it seem deep.
threatofrain 8mo ago
> It no longer signals being educated. Informal tone and mistakes actually signal that the message was written by a human and the imperfections increase my trust in the effort spent on the thing. But... you know that this moment will be so fleeting as one can trivially generate mistakes to look human.
array_key_first 8mo ago
Informal or conversational tone has always been the gold-standard for most communications. People just piss on it because they like to feel smart. But, most writing has purpose. And usually fulfilling that purpose requires readers to comprehend what you're writing. Conversational tone is easy to comprehend, and shockingly less ambiguous than you'd think, especially when tailored to the target audience.
- Terr_ 8mo ago
  > But, most writing has purpose. Over the years, I've become an odd fan of documents that start with a "purpose of this document" section. Sure, it seems weirdly bureaucratic at first, but as time goes on, you start seeing documents that don't really know what their focus is anymore, because different authors decided it was the least-bad place to dump their own guide, checklist, or opinions. L for example, imagine four documents about an API: A how-to guide; fine implementation details; a diagnostic checklist; a primer for executives or salespeople considering it as a product.
  - kstrauser 8mo ago
    I've gotten in the writing habit of BLUF, Bottom Line Up Front: "Hey boss, I think we should use this vendor. [4 paragraphs with charts and formulas explaining why that's the only rational choice]" The way readers parse this is "the sender thinks we should do this thing, and oh, now that I have that idea implanted in my brain, wow, they sure have a lot of supporting evidence! OK, fine, let's do it." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
netsharc 8mo ago
A friend of mine (non-native English speaker) said she's been talking to a guy (also non-native) on a dating app. She said he was very articulate and showed me some screenshots. One sentence he sent was "Family is paramount for you.". I told her "I bet you he's using ChatGPT"..
MichaelDickens 8mo ago
> On the positive side of this, research papers by competent people read very clearly with readable sentences, while those who are afraid that their content doesn't quite cut it, litter it with jargon, long complicated sentences, hoping that by making things hard, they will look smart. I often find that to be true. Another important factor is that research skill is correlated with writing skill. Someone who's at the top of their field is likely to be talented in other ways, too, and one such talented is making complex topics easier to understand.
hungryhobbit 8mo ago
Have you actually read a research paper, ever? They are FILLED with jargon (that just as easily could be an ordinary English word instead) ... and giant paragraphs made up of ten sentences all combined into one with semi-colons ... and with all sorts of other butchering of the English language. Scientific research papers follow their own grammar, which is specific to the research community ... and that grammar is atrocious!
- bonoboTP 8mo ago
  Most papers are badly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here I live in a wealthy town. It’s less sinister than explicit counter signaling. More that I’ll wear comfortable clothes until they wear out because I have better things to do with my time than shop, and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.

bonoboTP 8mo ago
Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling. An honest signal doesn't always take effort. In fact it's the tryhard imitators that have to expend effort emulating this. The real deal is effortless and comes naturally. The silverback gorilla can come across as scary and formidable even when its just lazing around not trying to look intimidating. It's just big, without spending thought cycles on having to appear big, but the others still recognize it.
- apsurd 8mo ago
  There is the "I don't (have to) give a fuck" counter-signaling. But also what about people that really don't care too much, out of ignorance even, or just fatigue. Sure there is intentionality in there, but do we really call that _counter-signaling_?
  - bonoboTP 8mo ago
    They can try it and sometimes it works, but generally it's hard to imitate well. You have to not give a fuck about the right things. The imitators who just don't give a fuck about anything will stumble on something genuinely important. Like the cool guy at school who doesn't give a fuck about what the teachers say will have to give a fuck about his friends and the community around him, to the skills that he gets his coolness from to preserve his status. A boss who sends informal messages should still give a fuck about the overall state of the team, on being timely to respond to actually important matters even if just giving a quick ok sent from my iPhone. The countersignaling is more about "I care about/provide more important things that are more valuable or impactful for you than getting caught up in bullshit insignificant superficial matters"

engineer_22 8mo ago

In my line of work we have professionals and lay people in contact with each other often, and I have found I get the best reaction (from all audiences) when I square myself away. Untidy dress isn't immediately disqualifying, but if it's enough to be noticeable it's enough to deserve an explanation.

PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago

I told this story about the old man in his 70s walking through a plant, giving his multi-decades expertise in how to solve our foam problems. Everyone else wore a polo... This guy genuinely didn't care. He was making $500/hr and didn't really want to be there. He was begged. He did some weird stuff with sticky notes on $100k molds... (and he didn't solve our problem). But you knew this guy was an expert.

stronglikedan 8mo ago

There's also: - No signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else because that's been my style since forever and I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.

coldtea 8mo ago
Still signalling. People don't get to decide if they're signalling or not. They only get to decide if they'll consciously signal or subconsciously signal. They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case.
- zephen 8mo ago
  > They (or their clothes as per the example) sends signals in either case. Unless you're Sherlock Holmes, or know the person and their wardrobe intimately, you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. Reddit and quora are littered with stories about car salesmen misreading what they thought were signals, and missing out on big sales. The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick.
  - decimalenough 8mo ago
    > you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. You're conflating actual value with perceived value. It's well established that perceptions matter and people make decisions based on this all the time. > The whole Julia Roberts trope resonates exactly because it happens in real life. No, it resonates because it's a feel good story. I'm sure it happens, but most of the time signaling is perfectly accurate. If you don't believe me, exchange clothes with a homeless person and try to go shopping on Rodeo Drive.
    - WalterBright 8mo ago
      I remember wandering into Cartier's in NYC dressed in my shaggy jeans and t-shirt. They didn't throw me out, but a security guard followed me around, definitely edging into my personal space to make me uncomfortable. I laughed, said I get it, looked a bit more, and left. I remember the days when you were expected to wear a suit on a jet, even the kids. These days, even the first class travelers wear track shorts. I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code.

ktm5j 8mo ago

I used to dress down at work because that's how everyone else dressed and I just wanted to fit in. But at some point I stopped doing that because I was caring way too much about what other people were thinking. I dress nice because I like it. It makes me feel good about myself, but has nothing to do with compensating.

WalterBright 8mo ago
People react differently towards me depending on how I dress. It's quite noticeable. The sensible thing to do is take advantage of it.
- marcosdumay 8mo ago
  And the best way to take advantage may be by unmasking the people that are incompetent enough to not assess others competence by looking at their work, and instead just look at their clothes. But well, it's context sensitive.
  - WalterBright 8mo ago
    Yes, I hear that a lot. Might as well push on a rope, though. In my early career years, a fellow employee came to work in track shorts and flip flops. He was a very, very good programmer. But he never got raises, and never got promoted, and complained to me about it. I suggested it was the way he dressed. He said the same things you wrote. A couple decades later, I ran into him again at a conference. He ran his own quite successful company. He also was dressed sharply. Things that make you go hmmm....
    - marcosdumay 8mo ago
      > He also was dressed sharply. As I said, it's context sensitive. Personally, I stopped dressing nicely at work after way too many people assumed I'd throw ethics at the trash and do what they say for the hint of a small promotion. Weirdly, that never stopped the people that actually wanted to do things from talking with me. But if you are talking to (potential) customers, the calculation is completely different.

gzread 8mo ago

[dead]

tamimio 8mo ago

This is an accurate analysis, as in “I’m the boss here and while you have to abide by whatever social norms or internal policies, I don’t because I’m better than all of you”.

mh2266 8mo ago

“Ratty old” and “formal” are not the only options. I dress mostly in techwear brands like Veilance, Outlier, and ACRNM, which is not ratty and old but is also very much not formal or uncomfortable.

tanjtanjtanj 8mo ago
I don’t think parent implied that that are the only options, they just gave examples that can fit into categories. Did you mean to add where your expensive polyester blend clothing lands on the spectrum they were illustrating?

LAC-Tech 8mo ago

It's not counter signalling. It's just the complete death of high culture. Hoodies aren't some statement about how you're too cool to care, it's just that no one cares to look good.

WalterBright 8mo ago
The newspaper ran an article about some high school kids who were on strike (!) because they didn't like the dress code. The article include a picture. They all dressed like complete slobs. I couldn't understand why they cared about the dress code.
sillywabbit 8mo ago
Hoodies are very comfortable.
- LAC-Tech 8mo ago
  So are pyjamas, or a muumuu, or underwear.
senordevnyc 8mo ago
It's just the complete death of high culture. Good riddance.

Lerc 8mo ago

There was an episode of Orphan Black where they were going to impersonate a billionaire. The guy turns up in a suit and gets told, 'A billionaire, not a millionaire, go and put some shorts on'

ahartman00 8mo ago

Using this logic, all of the homeless people are counter signaling then. And there are plenty of executives who wear suits. Also signaling has one l, so thus you are signaling your importance. Or maybe you just can't assume you know what's going on inside someone else's head.

monster_truck 8mo ago
That's uh, not how this works. That's not how any of this works
bpavuk 8mo ago
there is a good saying in Slavic culture bubble - "to stretch an owl onto globe" (натянуть сову на глобус) - which means "to overly extrapolate". congratulations, so far it's the biggest globe I saw a poor owl stretched onto :)
card_zero 8mo ago
What illogical speling.
kmijyiyxfbklao 8mo ago
I don't think it counts as counter-signaling if can call him out.
sheept 8mo ago
just to note, signaling has two L's in UK spelling
crazygringo 8mo ago
No... you have to actually be important to countersignal with your clothing. And yes, those plenty of executives are precisely in the "no signaling" category. Mere executives don't get to countersignal with their clothing in such a visible way. Majority owners do.

spiritplumber 8mo ago

I'm just glad ties are gone. I used to have it in my consulting contract that I would wear a tie for a maximum of x hours for the duration of the project, so choose them well. It used to be a point of negotiation, now nobody cares anymore.

NoGravitas 8mo ago
If a tie is uncomfortable, the problem isn't the tie, it's that your shirt doesn't fit.

wakawaka28 8mo ago

Everybody is signalling, especially the people who think they aren't. We could sit here all day and game out all the possible interpretations that could be made from anyone's appearance, with respect to who they actually are, and it won't change much. My take on it all: Programmers and other hot shot types often eschew formalities and conventions for dress and such, as a way of asserting status. "I'm professional and important enough to assert that my preferences supersede the ordinary" is what they want to signal. Of course, some are just childish enough to insist that dress codes don't matter in the slightest, and everyone must put up with their goofy graphic t-shirts. Others are willing to tolerate that stuff because most programmers are not customer-facing. But they still look like adult children when they insist on that crap.

Aloisius 8mo ago

It reads like textbook mind reading to me. The author does not actually know why people write with poor spelling/grammar nor truly how others would interpret them writing with with poor spelling/grammar. They have a guess, but there are any number of alternate reasons why someone might write poorly. They could be technologically illiterate, fat fingered, easily frustrated, mirroring their children, need glasses, careless or any other number of reasons. The only way to find out is to ask. Engaging in mind reading is fraught with danger. You're more likely to project your own own mood, stereotypes, behavior or beliefs on to others than actually guess what someone's thinking.

NoGravitas 8mo ago
I think it's less mind-reading than looking for a sociological explanation. That said, I think a big underlying cause is that Business Idiots [1] are, in fact, idiots. Even so, it's worth looking for a sociological explanation of why Being An Idiot doesn't hurt Business Idiots like it would hurt the rest of us. [1]: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/

zharknado 8mo ago

Alternative hypothesis—-efficiency. Executives are very, very busy. As long as you can figure out what they mean, polish doesn’t add much. (Unless it does because it’s an earnings call, board meeting, etc.) I’m quite convinced in most cases they are not spending time or energy consciously choosing to signal anything about status. They’re just not willing to pay the opportunity cost of keeping their attention on an internal communication any longer than the minimum required. They’re certainly capable of polished communication, but deploy that skill selectively when the return on investment is high. It’s a classic rookie pitfall to over-index on form instead of content (guilty myself many times). It’s more instructive to pay attention to which questions and ideas powerful people focus on than the forms they use to deliver them (which are not as important, turns out).

Spivak 8mo ago
Signaling happens whether you choose to do it on purpose or bo not. The people who are best at it don't do intentionally. The busy CEO is signaling status with this form of writing, they're so important and so many people demand their time that they have to skip on polish. That's the definition of status.
jgwil2 8mo ago
The examples in the article are conspicuously unpolished. Autocorrect catches all of this stuff nowadays. Somebody had to make an effort to write that badly.

jiggawatts 8mo ago

I’ve seen an fascinating paper (sorry, lost the url) that expanded on this using game theory: it’s common for “economic stratification” to have on the order of ten to fifteen levels, from abject poverty up to hundred-billionaires. Look at it this way: there are five orders of magnitude between a “mere” ten-millionaire and the likes of Elon or Bezos! To most people that’s the “same” level of rich, but each factor of ten is dramatically richer! However, signals like “purposefully disheveled” and “well manicured” are essentially binary, so… they’re alternated. Each strata layer of factor of ten indicates this by flipping whatever the layer is doing below them. They won’t be confused with “two layers down” because that’s such a gulf that nobody will misunderstand.

jvandreae 8mo ago
I believe this is touched upon in https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/22/right-is-the-new-left/

jpfromlondon 8mo ago

- Signalling: I dress more formally than everyone else to make up for the fact I'm less professional in other ways - No signalling: I dress like everyone else because I am like everyone else - Countersignalling: I wear ratty old clothes with holes in them, and nobody will dare to question it because I'm the important one here In old-money settings all three of these things can be true simultaneously, dressing more formally than people outside, just like everyone else inside (in fact expected, to indicate familiarity with the standards of class, and often worn, ratty, old, and comfortable.

freggi 8mo ago

I don’t think it’s counter-signaling- I think it’s just millenialism, even if it’s done by people in other generations just mimicking them. As a gen-X, I’d never send a bunch of crying emojis, and agree it’s unprofessional, but my millenial co-workers would do it.