A more helpful way to think about "signaling"

Robin Hanson is a seminal figure in my corner of the internet. One of the things he talks a lot about is "signaling," an explanation for people's behavior that says they are not doing X because of X's obvious benefits (or the benefits they would say they're going for), but instead because X demonstrates an advantageous social property or attitude.

E.g., "medicine isn't about health" means "when people make healthcare decisions, it's easier to explain their behavior by assuming that they are trying to demonstrate that they are reliable allies instead of trying to make people healthier." Same with "politics isn't about policy," "art isn't about insight," "charity isn't about helping," etc. (See more here, here, and here.) Even nastier, Robin thinks our brains hide these real motives from ourselves, because it's more advantageous to really believe you are doing charity to help people, instead of strategically demonstrating alliance.

E.g. a peacock with a brain more like a human's might say they just like having plumage because it's beautiful, but Hanson would say they're "really" judging that plumage is expensive, and they want to show that they're healthy enough to waste energy on it. They just don't know that's their "real reason"!

Sorry peacock, you should have stuck with a peacock brain -- it's a simpler life.

If we set aside the question of whether these theories are well-supported and assume that there's at least a little truth to them, they could be helpful for thinking through decisions to get more of what we endorse wanting -- if you can notice when one healthcare decision is better for demonstrating caring while another is more effective, or when one kind of art is better (for you) for insight / enjoyment while another is trendier, you can make more informed choices.

But I don't find it very helpful to get in a mindset of "I'm doing a bunch of stuff for hidden, embarrassing, sometimes hypocritical reasons" -- that's a nasty thing to believe about yourself, and in people who are maybe a little too obsessed with perfect behavior, I think it's more likely to lead to fretting or defensiveness than better decisions.

Here's a better way (for me) that seems just as true as the Nasty View:

1. Assume that the feelings are real
2. Note that there could be other forces influencing the feelings
3. Check whether you want to rebalance your decision
4. Check whether there are prosocial ways to channel those forces -- plumage actually is beautiful

E.g.:

1. "This art speaks to me! It's fun, and I want to share it with people!"
2. "Sometimes people get this kind of feeling because some part of their brain is keeping track of what might look cool to other people -- e.g. this art is sophisticated, and enjoying it would show that I'm sophisticated."
3. "Does knowing this change how I feel about the art? Not in this case, I still like it!"
4. "I feel great about a world where everyone 'shows off their plumage' -- sure, be careful not to play status games with your art taste, but let's celebrate the beautiful weird extreme things, and give other people the chance to see if they would like it too."

And that's why I feel 100% good about sharing this song, while incidentally demonstrating that I'm a Sophisticated Person who likes Slightly Complicated Things:

Merry Christmas!