[roywiggins]

Ah, you see, it's supposed to be largely unconscious. So it can explain nearly anything, by saying that you didn't realize you were signalling, but actually, deep down, that's why you did it. Like Freudian theories, or evo-psych theories, or whatever. It's all deep somewhere in your brain cells, you just don't know about it. Allegedly.

It sure seems to be able to prove way too much. Once a theory is flexible enough to explain nearly anything that happens, then maybe it's not actually a useful theory.

It can explain things you buy, but it can explain things you don't buy (you're signalling that you're not the sort of person who would spend $X for Y), it can even "explain" things you do that nobody ever sees- because your brain still considers what signals you might be sending even when nobody's watching. Marvelous.

[chrisdirkis]

For something to be a useful hypothesis, it must both match historical data and be good at predicting future data. Given that the signalling explanation is usually used post fact, and when used to predict is wrong as often as not (in my experience), it seems like a pretty useless hypothesis when used broadly.

Possible that there's a narrower hypothesis, or someone that uses it to accurately predict systems and behaviours. Would like to see it in that case.