5 ms·

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. The

by coldtea 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.
    - anonymars 9mo ago
      > I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code I'd take a code of conduct before the dress code. Though, appropriately enough, I suppose the latter signals the former
      - WalterBright 9mo ago
        Decent people don't need a code of conduct. There's been pressure on the D Language Foundation to have a CoC. I've consistently refused one. The only thing I demand is "professional conduct". Sometimes people ask me what professional conduct is. I reply with: 1. ask your mother 2. failing that, I recommend Emily Post's book on Business Etiquette. And an amazing thing happened. Everyone in the D forums behaves professionally. Every once in a while someone new will test this, their posts get deleted, and then they leave or behave professionally.
        anonymars 9mo ago
        I meant for flights (edited accordingly). In both cases I think "don't be a dick" probably would go most of the way
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        You'll get treated better by the staff if you dress better.
        anonymars 9mo ago
        I'm less concerned with the behavior of the staff than the behavior of the other passengers
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        The staff can be more inclined to help you if you've got a problem.
- coldtea 9mo ago
  >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. You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. It's evolutionary wiring. From a glance, people can tell whether they others are rich or poor or middle class, their power status within a situation (e.g. a social gathering), their sexual orientation (studies show the gaydar exists), whether they're a threat or crazy or rapey or neurodiverse or meek and many other things, whether they're lazy or dilligent, and lots of other things. >Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick. What black and white thinkers miss is this doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable. Just a lot more often than random chance. And it has nothing to do with the comical Holmes "he had a scratch mark on his phone, so he must be alcoholic" level inferences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc
  - zephen 9mo ago
    > You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. True. I overstated my case a bit. Of course, no matter what they are wearing, it is something that exists in their wardrobe, but that may or may not matter. > studies show the gaydar exists This, I know from experience. I had a gay roommate once, and he taught he how to spot them, way back when they were still trying to be a bit unobvious. But, even though gay people usually dress better and in certain ways, that's not the usual tell. It's really not about the clothes. > doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable This is paradigmatic "system 1" thinking. We all use it, but sometimes the failures are catastrophic.
- lotsofpulp 9mo ago
  > you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. The goal is not to discern anything about a particular person from a one-time viewing of them, the goal is to discern something about a person a sufficiently high percentage of the time. Hence the evolutionary utility of using prior probabilities. As history, and probably many people’s personal experiences, have shown, this trait also has drawbacks.
LoganDark 9mo ago
I feel like this is actually that people don't get to decide if others will perceive signals.
- ishouldstayaway 9mo ago
  This is a distinction without a difference; a signal was received, whether you meant to send it or not.
  - dwaltrip 9mo ago
    It’s quite a difference… The expected or assumed signal can differ radically from the perceived signal, often in surprising ways. People spend so much energy doing things based on untrue assumptions about what others are thinking. And this is before we even get into how much one should adjust their behavior based on someone else’s perception.
    - simon666 9mo ago
      Yeah similarly we can make a few distinctions here: 1) Intended signal, true 2) Unintended signal, but true 3) Unintended signal, but false (Sure, 1' intended but false; though not really important here) When (1) obtains we can describe this situation as one where sender and received coordinate on a message. When (2) obtains we can say the sender acted in a way that indicative of some fact or other and the received is recognizes this; (2) can obtain when one obtains as a separate signal or when the sender hasn't intended to send a signal. (3) obtains when the receiver attributes to the sender some expressive behavior or information that is inaccurate, say, because an interpretive schema has characterized the sender and the coding system incorrectly producing an interpretation that is false.
      - marcus_holmes 9mo ago
        Also remember that each recipient of the signal will have their own reaction to it. What signals professional competence to one person can signal lickspittle corporate toadying to another.

by coldtea 9mo ago

zephen 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.
  - anonymars 9mo ago
    > I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code I'd take a code of conduct before the dress code. Though, appropriately enough, I suppose the latter signals the former
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      Decent people don't need a code of conduct. There's been pressure on the D Language Foundation to have a CoC. I've consistently refused one. The only thing I demand is "professional conduct". Sometimes people ask me what professional conduct is. I reply with: 1. ask your mother 2. failing that, I recommend Emily Post's book on Business Etiquette. And an amazing thing happened. Everyone in the D forums behaves professionally. Every once in a while someone new will test this, their posts get deleted, and then they leave or behave professionally.
      - anonymars 9mo ago
        I meant for flights (edited accordingly). In both cases I think "don't be a dick" probably would go most of the way
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        You'll get treated better by the staff if you dress better.
        anonymars 9mo ago
        I'm less concerned with the behavior of the staff than the behavior of the other passengers
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        The staff can be more inclined to help you if you've got a problem.
coldtea 9mo ago
>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. You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. It's evolutionary wiring. From a glance, people can tell whether they others are rich or poor or middle class, their power status within a situation (e.g. a social gathering), their sexual orientation (studies show the gaydar exists), whether they're a threat or crazy or rapey or neurodiverse or meek and many other things, whether they're lazy or dilligent, and lots of other things. >Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes, as George Carlin pointed out, it's a big fat brown dick. What black and white thinkers miss is this doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable. Just a lot more often than random chance. And it has nothing to do with the comical Holmes "he had a scratch mark on his phone, so he must be alcoholic" level inferences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKQOk5UlQSc
- zephen 9mo ago
  > You'd be surprised. People discern things of value from a one-time viewing of another person constantly. True. I overstated my case a bit. Of course, no matter what they are wearing, it is something that exists in their wardrobe, but that may or may not matter. > studies show the gaydar exists This, I know from experience. I had a gay roommate once, and he taught he how to spot them, way back when they were still trying to be a bit unobvious. But, even though gay people usually dress better and in certain ways, that's not the usual tell. It's really not about the clothes. > doesn't have to be accurate all the time to exist and be usable This is paradigmatic "system 1" thinking. We all use it, but sometimes the failures are catastrophic.
lotsofpulp 9mo ago
> you literally cannot discern anything of value from a one-time viewing of them. The goal is not to discern anything about a particular person from a one-time viewing of them, the goal is to discern something about a person a sufficiently high percentage of the time. Hence the evolutionary utility of using prior probabilities. As history, and probably many people’s personal experiences, have shown, this trait also has drawbacks.

LoganDark 9mo ago

I feel like this is actually that people don't get to decide if others will perceive signals.

ishouldstayaway 9mo ago
This is a distinction without a difference; a signal was received, whether you meant to send it or not.
- dwaltrip 9mo ago
  It’s quite a difference… The expected or assumed signal can differ radically from the perceived signal, often in surprising ways. People spend so much energy doing things based on untrue assumptions about what others are thinking. And this is before we even get into how much one should adjust their behavior based on someone else’s perception.
  - simon666 9mo ago
    Yeah similarly we can make a few distinctions here: 1) Intended signal, true 2) Unintended signal, but true 3) Unintended signal, but false (Sure, 1' intended but false; though not really important here) When (1) obtains we can describe this situation as one where sender and received coordinate on a message. When (2) obtains we can say the sender acted in a way that indicative of some fact or other and the received is recognizes this; (2) can obtain when one obtains as a separate signal or when the sender hasn't intended to send a signal. (3) obtains when the receiver attributes to the sender some expressive behavior or information that is inaccurate, say, because an interpretive schema has characterized the sender and the coding system incorrectly producing an interpretation that is false.
    - marcus_holmes 9mo ago
      Also remember that each recipient of the signal will have their own reaction to it. What signals professional competence to one person can signal lickspittle corporate toadying to another.