[StevenWaterman]

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]

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.

[array_key_first]

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_]

> 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]

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)

[crassus_ed]

>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?

[coldtea]

>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

[nine_k]

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]

I'm personally suspicious of anyone using the word candid.

[bonoboTP]

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]

a vocabulary of certain width raises a question "does this creature understand the words it is using?". So yeah I mistrust them more

[irishcoffee]

> 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?

[robocat]

> 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_]

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.

[Lerc]

>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.

[MichaelDickens]

> 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.

[threatofrain]

> 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.

[antonchekhov]

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.

[netsharc]

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"..

[swexbe]

Muddying the water to make it seem deep.

[hungryhobbit]

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]

Most papers are badly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

[coldtea]

>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...

[zharknado]

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).

[jgwil2]

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.

[Spivak]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Not having to care is often part of the countersignaling

If it’s used to signal, yes. The absence of a signal can be a signal. Or it can blend into the background. My point is wealthy folks wearing ordinary, loved clothes can be either, and in many cases it’s honestly just not giving a fuck and blending in with everyone else by happenstance.

[bonoboTP]

A signal is a two way street. It remains a signal even if the signaler is oblivious to it but the observers still draw conclusions.

[MarkusQ]

That's called projecting. If someone doesn't send a signal, but you believe you received it, that's on you, not them. You may _think_ the color of their skin or hair or the way they talk or dress or whatever "means/says something" (and, in some cases, it might) but it might just as well say something about you, not them.

[bonoboTP]

You can call it whatever you want but people make inferences. Also there is no bright line between intentional and unintentional signaling. The brain is capable of hiding plenty of stuff from its own other parts. See the book "The elephant in the brain".

[apsurd]

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]

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"

[apsurd]

Well I agree and support that! Everyone cares about something. That's good and healthy.

There is a ton of value in intentionality. I realize I'm defending against this idea that if you don't do a given thing it must mean you really, really care about signaling that you'd never be caught doing that thing. You want to be caught signaling that you aren't doing it!

Of course that's true for some, many even. It's also true that someone just thought and lived and experienced and through intentionality, they come to opt-out of more and more of the fuss, in either direction.

[bonoboTP]

Yes, overthinking this is also possible. I've had bosses who type correctly capitalized, with punctuation and paragraphs, and it's simply their style, not much else to read into it. But sometimes it can indicate a certain pedantic busybody personality who misses the forest for the trees and can be a pain in the ass to interact with.

[lazyasciiart]

That’s why there are entire books based on the joke that you can’t tell a homeless guy from a hippie with a trust fund.

[bonoboTP]

And of course you can, at latest after one or two sentences.

[coldtea]

100%. The homeless guy will sound way more coherent and less sociopathic.

[Terr_]

> An honest signal doesn't always take effort.

I would guess that the non-effort signals instead involve risk tolerance.

It's a statement that they could easily withstand the consequences of an adverse judgement in ways regular people can't.

If I get turned away from Le Foie Heureux for failing to meet the restaurant dress-code, there's not much I can do. If the sommelier thinks that a billionaire looks like a vagrant, well, the billionaire will make a phone call...

[nilkn]

"Signaling" is just the information that your visible choices send to those around you, including strangers. That's why it's called "signaling" -- your choices are broadcasting an information signal about you to others.

To not signal, you must make choices that carry little or no information in the context in which they exist. If you make choices in a context in which they are abnormal (e.g., dressing very casually in a context that others can't access in similar clothing), they inherently broadcast unique information about you. In some cases, that information can create a complex side effect in how people perceive you, even if you don't intend it (e.g., "this person put in the absolute bare minimum effort, because they knew we'd have to be nice to them no matter what, which feels disrespectful to me; their lack of optional effort for others signals that they only care about themselves, not us").

[TacticalCoder]

> "Signaling" is just the information that your visible choices send to those around you, including strangers. That's why it's called "signaling" -- your choices are broadcasting an information signal about you to others.

Where the theory falls flat re- signaling to strangers is that there are people that do dress very differently, use different cars, sometimes shave, sometimes not, on different days of the week.

And it's also very well known that many people simply do not pay attention to others. They mind their own business and that's it.

When I'm driving a random car and I'm dressed casually and not shaven, what signal am I sending to the strangers I'll see once during the day and who are anyway only minding their own business?

And the next day when I put on fancy shoes, an expensive watch, and I take out one of my Porsche and then go out and cross path with strangers, what signal am I sending? I'll only ever see them during that other day. Strangers who, also, only mind their own business.

The funny thing is: just like I don't give a flying fuck about other people, other people don't give a flying fuck about me.

But anyway how can I be signaling one thing to strangers on monday and another thing tuesday to other strangers?

Where it gets better: some days my wife prepares the clothes she wants me to wear (maybe because people shall come to the house later on or whatever), some days she doesn't and I just change underwear after my shower and put the same jeans I had the day before. Then I go to the garage: we both have several car keys. Maybe she decided to take my Porsche, maybe not.

So basically: I don't always pick the clothes I wear and my wife loves to sometimes take my Porsche.

What am I "signaling" to strangers? Not only I'm not totally in control of my outfit and my car but also simply don't care.

"Grug hungry. Grug grabs money or credit card. Grub puts whatever clothes on. Grug goes to whatever car is in the garage. Grub drives to groceries store to buy atoms to stay alive".

That's literally me.

Now maybe people in this thread meant to say: "signaling in the workplace towards people you see every day at work" but that's way different than "signaling to strangers".

To put it simply: I think a lot of people in this thread are way overestimating the level of caring other people exhibit.

I guarantee you that on the caring continuum most people by very far are on the "I couldn't care less" extreme.

There is such a thing as people who simply don't give a fuck and nobody is signaling anything to people who aren't even paying attention to you.

Grug goes to the groceries store to buy atoms to survive, not to look at other people's clothes/watch/car.

Signaling to people who aren't strangers: OK, that one I can buy. But to strangers I call horse load of shit because many people can "signal" two entire different things on two different days of the week. The only signal people see is the same as what people see reading tea leaves.

[coldtea]

>and I don’t need to use dress anymore to get the access I want and need.

The privilege in that, contrasted with the lack of privilege for those in the inverse situation, is what's sinister.

[JumpCrisscross]

> privilege in that, contrasted with the lack of privilege for those in the inverse situation, is what's sinister

To folks who code any advantage as sinister, sure. I for one like living in a town that saves seats for locals over tourists.

[coldtea]

Being a tourist is different to being poor or underpriveleged, in precisely that it's a privileged thing.

[apsurd]

Agree, the parent comment leaves no room for nuance so people end up damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I do think thinking through the extremes and motivations and intentions of behavior is worth it. But confident conclusions less so.

When it comes to writing and fashion, definitely people over-correct to project a status, in both directions. But also there's just the aged realization that people will think what they will think, and you kinda just opt-out of the game.

[bonoboTP]

You can't really opt out, just choose better suited minigames.

Generally when you don't (have to) care, you either have to back that up with some other accumulated reputation/value, or sacrifice some things. Like you can opt out of the job market game and being bossed around either by founding your own company, going self employed with clients (the hard part), or just sacrifice and downsize your life standard, become homeless or similar. But someone who needs a steady income in lieu of a big inheritance can't just opt out of caring.

[PlatoIsADisease]

This isnt perfect. Our household income is probably 500k/yr and growing in a city with an average income of ~100k+.

If I wear nice stuff to the park with the kids, I'm noticed. If I wear raggy gym clothes, I'm ignored.

My best guess is that comfortable clothes are necessary but you also need something high value in addition. New shoes or expensive outerwear that 'your wife bought'.

[JumpCrisscross]

> My best guess is that comfortable clothes are necessary but you also need something high value in addition

I’m just a regular. The point is I’m not signaling anything, I’m just not bothering with a signal because I have other things (namely, being recognized) that will e.g. ensure I get a table even if it’s a busy night.

If I go to Vegas I may grab a silk shirt because, yes, my service experience absolutely varies based on that, and I don’t want to have to wait until they see what I order or get to the check-in counter to start being paid attention to. (Which is annoying. And I prefer my t-shirts with cat holes in them. But I don’t like waiting in lines more than I dislike having to do my hair.)

(I do maybe counter signal in Palo Alto, where I refuse to wear a blazer or a Palo-Alto-grey hoodie. But that’s less of a power move than me inviting attention as a now outsider.)

[8note]

> I’m just a regular. The point is I’m not signaling anything, I’m just not bothering with a signal because I have other things (namely, being recognized) that will e.g. ensure I get a table even if it’s a busy night.

it might not be on purpose, but you are signalling that you have status such that you dont need to play by whatever rules other people do to get said table.

to signal like a regular person, you would be doing all the same stuff other people do to get the table

[JumpCrisscross]

> it might not be on purpose, but you are signalling that you have status

Not really. I’m relying on another signal, the recognizance of my person in a small town. If a tourist walked in wearing what I’m wearing they wouldn’t get that treatment. The signal is my face. Not the dress. (I could dress up for the evening and the same thing would happen.)

> to signal like a regular person, you would be doing all the same stuff other people do to get the table

Sure. That’s the point. I’m not signaling “like a regular person.” I’m just not sending a signal with dress. I’m dressing ordinarily.

If I were actually trying to camouflage I’d do other things. And that would constitute false signaling. (And sure, with my friends, I am signaling something. But it’s still not a counter signal unless we expand the terms signal and counter signal to mean literally anything, information and noise alike.)

[ktm5j]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[WalterBright]

In order to fit in with your peers, it's best to dress like them. But on the higher end of the range.

For example, when Obama would talk to union workers, he'd wear jeans. But a pretty nice pair of them.

[Spivak]

You can't control others, you can only control your response to them. How people perceive you is a comprehensive and isn't always based in logic. You can use this to your advantage and take control of your own narrative or not. But you'll be worse off for it if you don't.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised about what kinds of things people look favorably on.

[dxdm]

What a tease. Please pleasantly surprise me! :)

[wakawaka28]

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]

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]

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/

[stronglikedan]

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]

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.

[LoganDark]

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

[ishouldstayaway]

This is a distinction without a difference; a signal was received, whether you meant to send it or not.

[dwaltrip]

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]

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.

[zephen]

> 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.

[coldtea]

>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

[zephen]

> 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.

[decimalenough]

> 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]

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]

> 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

[saghm]

> I kinda wish the airlines would have a dress code

What? Why? Are you really that bothered by other people wearing stuff that you wouldn't personally want to wear? I can't even imagine going through life with strong feelings about how other people should dress; it legitimately sounds exhausting.

[lotsofpulp]

> 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.

[ishouldstayaway]

I find this kind of funny, since you say your not signalling anything, and then in the second half of the sentence describe for us a very signal you claim you aren't sending:

> I'm not going to change for a role that doesn't require it.

Whether you like it or not, whether you meant to or not, you are communicating something here. You don't get to opt out.

[nine_k]

"No signaling" would be: "I dress like I always do since forever." Any reference to opinions of others would mean that the person cares for them, even in the form of "I don't care", and thus the dress is also a signal to them.

[saghm]

At least for me, the signal I'm sending is "I care more about how comfortable I am in my clothes than I do about what other people are inferring about them". The point isn't that people aren't receiving some sort of signal about me based on that, it's that the signal that they might receive is entirely irrelevant to my motivations. That itself might be a signal, but it's incidental to the actual choice I'm making, which is entirely personal.

[contravariant]

Honest signalling is still a thing. In fact it's rather common, it's one of the reasons most poisonous animals actually look poisonous.

[ahartman00]

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.

[bpavuk]

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 :)

[crazygringo]

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.

[sheept]

just to note, signaling has two L's in UK spelling

[kmijyiyxfbklao]

I don't think it counts as counter-signaling if can call him out.

[card_zero]

What illogical speling.

[monster_truck]

That's uh, not how this works. That's not how any of this works

[jpfromlondon]

- 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.

[PlatoIsADisease]

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.

[freggi]

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.

[LAC-Tech]

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]

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]

Hoodies are very comfortable.

[LAC-Tech]

So are pyjamas, or a muumuu, or underwear.

[senordevnyc]

It's just the complete death of high culture.

Good riddance.

[mh2266]

“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]

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?

[tamimio]

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”.

[Lerc]

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'

[engineer_22]

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.

[jiggawatts]

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]

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

[spiritplumber]

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]

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