Book 3 - Page 284

Disinfomercial

Book 3 - Page 284
Comic - Book 3 - Page 284
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Sylvan wrote:
abb3w wrote:

Huh. Whether or not that's what they are thinking, the notion seems to suggest the question: "Whose style is it?"
To which "Janis Atlantis" seems the most obvious answer.

Hmmmm....... Fertility goddess definitely suggests hippiemancer to me, and definitely does remind me of some hippies I know, but the face of the statue seems too square to me to be Ms. Atlantis.


Oh, sure. However, that seems a comparatively minor aspect of Signamancy that would require relatively small shift in the two to bring those into alignment; probably a lot less for Janis than for Charlie.

I wonder what Janis would do if she ended up ruler of Charliescomm (Janiscom?), and mistress of the Arkendish?
Diodri wrote:
I can't believe that the term 'alt-right' is being used unironically. I thought it was just something news outlets used as a new buzzword.

The majority of people who get called 'alt-right' do not easily fall along any established political lines.

It's a self described movement, unlike "SJW" for example which is a slur used in an attempt to ridicule political / ideological enemies.

It's a strange world where an attempted slur is constructed over defending or championing social justice.

Anomunous, sorry. I think it's a bit futile for me to try and explain what I meant. The group think seems pretty set among people still reading this poor uncroaked shambler of a thread.

There are established terms to use for describing a homosexual joining in gay bashing to protect himself. "Virtue signaling" is not what I would use, nor would it pass in an academic text if I tried, I suspect.

It's funny how people smugly accuse me of ignoring the "proof", while simultaniously completely ignoring my explanation on how this is a misuse of signaling theory from behavioral ecology.

Oh, and apparently a scholar of religion is a authority on evolutionary paychology. Funny, I thought that required studying evolutionary biology and paychology.
Jatopian wrote:

Maybe you don't like the term because you'd rather people didn't have an easy way to describe your undesirable behavior?

There's no facepalm epic enough for this.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:

So can we all just agree that people who pretend to have a "virtuous" outlook while their behavior outside of public view is indicative of the opposite should be accused of hypocrisy rather than 'virtue signaling'?

Much better. No need to try and coin a smug, passive aggressive new term when we have perfectly good existing ones.

There are indeed a lot of hypocrites in the world. There are nasty people who pretend to be virtuous on the outside.

That is no reason to distort the language of science in the service of ideology. That is 1984 style Newspeak.
Too long to quote, so I'll just say "bravo abb3w" <3

Have some schmuckers.
Actually, I think that social scientists are the ones who should just have said "hypocrisy" rather than inventing "virtue signaling".

When I say "all", I don't mean "except 'scientists'".

Alt-right is a funny thing. They're basically anti-conservative rebels, but the establishment they're rebelling against is still claiming to be anti-conservative itself. That's basically all the term means, and this time when I say "all", I mean that it has no other real meaning. When someone says they're alt-right, you can't predict what the next thing they'll say might be.

At least as used by people vilifying them, alt-right has a more definite meaning. It may not be a particularly more useful meaning, but it could hardly be less useful.
As I understand it, hypocrisy and virtue signaling aren't the same because you can virtue-signal by doing actual virtuous things in a visible way. It's not hypocritical to talk about how we should feed the homeless and then volunteer at a soup kitchen. It can be virtue-signaling, though, especially if you take a bunch of photos for your Facebook and bring it up at every possible opportunity.
Adept wrote:
Oh, and apparently a scholar of religion is a authority on evolutionary paychology. Funny, I thought that required studying evolutionary biology and paychology.

..."paychology"? :lol:

While you seem to be recognizing most of my points in a subsequent post, I'll note again your original request was for a "social scientist"; and Bubublia is a "scholar of religion" who studies religions as social phenomena, rather than one who studies their idiosyncratic doctrines.

Pascal Boyer appears to have come to a similar intersectionality of domains -- a psychologist who has written on the evolution of religion. (He's not discussed "virtue signalling"; however, some of the experimental work of Bubublia may help fill in a potential weakness in Boyer's assessment on the evolutionary utility of rituals, discussed in his "Religion Explained" book.)

Occasionally in the professional world, someone's area of research and expertise diverges from their initial degree. I know an anthropologist-by-training who ended up going (by way of diversion into socio-technical systems studies, and a hobbyist interest in computers) into developing expertise on voting machine system security.

Adept wrote:
Too long to quote, so I'll just say "bravo abb3w" <3
Have some schmuckers.

Costly signalling of virtue? Thank you. :ugeek:


Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Actually, I think that social scientists are the ones who should just have said "hypocrisy" rather than inventing "virtue signaling".
Jatopian wrote:
As I understand it, hypocrisy and virtue signaling aren't the same because you can virtue-signal by doing actual virtuous things in a visible way. It's not hypocritical to talk about how we should feed the homeless and then volunteer at a soup kitchen. It can be virtue-signaling, though, especially if you take a bunch of photos for your Facebook and bring it up at every possible opportunity.

It seems to me as if a major distinction between the alt-right usage of "virtue signaling" and the use by social scientists such as Bubublia is that the alt-right appears to presume that the signal is always a "dishonest signal" -- in the parlance Adept indicated a bit back while linking to Wikipedia. That is, they appear to presume that there is never any true merit underlying the signal. (This seems to suggest something about the virtue of those who self-identify with the alt-right.)

I suspect that this relates to the concept of "proof certificates" in theory of computation, which in turn ties to the mathematical concept of a "witness", which in turn ties back to the game theory that seems a large part of the underpinnings for contemporary evolutionary social psychology models of signalling theory. However, I'm just an amateur dilettante.
abb3w wrote:
It seems to me as if a major distinction between the alt-right usage of "virtue signaling" and the use by social scientists such as Bubublia is that the alt-right appears to presume that the signal is always a "dishonest signal" -- in the parlance Adept indicated a bit back while linking to Wikipedia. That is, they appear to presume that there is never any true merit underlying the signal. (This seems to suggest something about the virtue of those who self-identify with the alt-right.)
I would guess a simpler mechanic is usually in play, they don't regard what is being signaled as a virtue. Alt-right, whatever they do regard as virtuous (and really, you can never predict what their idea of virtue is going to be), it's going to be different.

In fact, one popular refrain that emerges with a lot of people who probably could be characterized as some stripe or other of Alt-right is to claim that their opponents really mean what they say, especially when it comes to criticizing Marxist or Islamic social influences. Nor is this restricted to Alt-right commentators, it's just more common with them.

This is harder to sort out than it would be if nobody had decided to conflate the concepts of hypocrisy, virtue, and immorality all together under the term "virtue signaling". It doesn't have any real scientific purpose, since as discussed in order to really study it there is a need to know if the signals are easy or hard to fake, as well as the specificity and demographics of the social groups that rely on them.

Social science can't be neutral about morality the same way physics can. Physics has morally neutral applications, social science doesn't. There are morally neutral questions about how to treat rocks and machines, there are no morally neutral questions about how to treat people...especially large numbers of people.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:


Social science can't be neutral about morality the same way physics can. Physics has morally neutral applications, social science doesn't. There are morally neutral questions about how to treat rocks and machines, there are no morally neutral questions about how to treat people...especially large numbers of people.

"God does not roll dice" - Albert Einstein against quantum mechanics. There is alternative theory to quantum mechanics proposed by Einstein and friends that is also theoretical basis for "emdrive", "RF resonant cavity thruster" (thrust without sending mass opposite direction), that seems to work according to early nasa experiment.

On other end of spectrum, quantum mechanics fits very well with a "computer simulation", but that would make some atheists uncomfortable because the one who controls the simulation could basically be "God"... unless the atheists think there is a way to hack the simulation to overcome the user who made it.

If you've invested much of your life in a certain outlook on life there is a bias to keep that outlook and exclude theories that would upset it, and that includes physics.


As far as "virtue signalling", both sides of political spectrum imo say similar things. "No child left behind" - G.W.Bush. "Healthcare for all" Obama. Nuclear disarmament, both of the above in same point in presidency. Easy to look and see reaction of the other side of politics says when a leader does something and compare to what they say about own leader doing much the same thing with same good and bad.

Currently (right) Donald Trump is using "virtues" from (left) Michael Moores playbook for rust belt states, using much the same style to do so.

Around 2002 I remember directly witnessing in downtown Edmonton, Canada several protestors of the afghanistan war "about oil" hugging each other in library parkade before going home in SUVs, 1 person per car. I think they exchanged phone numbers and they signalled virtue by opposing a war similar to what they remember of Vietnam war. I never saw anything like that in 2009+ when Obama had surge in afghanistan, and more US casualties in afghanistan in much smaller time than entire Bush 8 years of war.

I lower temp lower temp from 20c (68f) to 10c (50f) in winter seem very minor to me but impossible for others who think survival of planet is at stake. (I do it because less shock when you go outside, easy to wear sleeveless coat and be warm at 10c, and seems less germs like flu, cold...) In my opinion it is fake virtue signalling to claim "world will be destroyed" and "I care to save planet" but not be able to do such a tiny thing. (Almost all humans 100 years ago happily dealt with worse and pets and other animals do as well even today without being able to put on extra clothes)