Remix clone Hacker News

I feel like rational communication requires an overlap in perspective - not the same point of view, but some amount of overlap.

Science relies on rational communication between people who disagree, because we can fool ourselves, and we can fool our in-group. The narrative fallacy doesn't just affect weak minds; by yourself, you won't outsmart your own filters.

To learn about the world, you have to accept the world, and some things about the world are hard to accept as bare facts. Donald Trump was elected president. Can you accept that as a bare fact? Probably not if you've fought with people about it. There's a drag show in town. Can you accept that as a bare fact? ... IQ tests have a history of racial disparity. ... The earth is round and orbits the sun. ...

A lot of rational minded people tend to disparage emotional intelligence, but I feel that rational communication across strong moral feelings requires a lot of emotional work and trust, and it's really hard to trust while you are fighting.

---

I feel like 'virtue signaling' is poorly named. I think 'Comfort Signaling' and 'Loyalty Signaling' are easier to talk and reason about.

* I am flying this flag because I want my people to be comfortable with me.

* I am flying this flag because I want my people to know that I am loyal to them, and I don't care about what other people think. (Or, I'm fine with the other people hating me because of this flag)

▲

lowkeyoptimist 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

It is 100% virtue signaling because it is used as a means to feel and show moral superiority to others that do not hold those views or 'virtues'.

It is also a loyalty and comfort signal, but as we saw with Helmuth's reaction - it is impossible that Gen X saw fault with Harris' policies. It is only that they are bigoted, narrow minded, fascist loving, misogynist. If a 'virtue' is questioned, you are excommunicated from the 'liberal/ Democrat' party if you want to label it as such.

	▲	csours 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, this is exactly why I don't like the term; it does not do a good job of describing intent as seen from the person in question.

▲

nonethewiser 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I feel like 'virtue signaling' is poorly named. I think 'Comfort Signaling' and 'Loyalty Signaling' are easier to talk and reason about.

> * I am flying this flag because I want my people to be comfortable with me.

> * I am flying this flag because I want my people to know that I am loyal to them, and I don't care about what other people think. (Or, I'm fine with the other people hating me because of this flag)

Why don't you think "virtue" signaling works for that? That's the same meaning.

▲

csours 7 days ago | parent [-]

Because I don't feel that the confederate battle flag is virtuous.

Virtue signaling is done by people in every in-group; when it is done by people my in-group is fighting against Virtue Signaling does not feel like a virtue.

▲

jbstjohn 6 days ago | parent [-]

The thing is, it's not just loyalty, it's also a 'better than only mid-level believers in the cause'. There's definitely a purity / piety aspect. I do like "piety" as it captures the religious aspect.

	▲	csours 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think that's a good addition. My main point is that it's not just one signal, and that 'virtue' carries too much emotional and moral freight. Maybe call them Signals of Virtues.

▲

UltraSane 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This comment started off really well with the need for successful communication requiring at least a partial overlap of of worldviews but then goes into the weeds with the comment about Trump. No one is denying that Trump won the election. But a huge percentage of Republicans believe that Trump actually won the last election. This is a real example of how worldviews on the right and left differ radically. The drag show is also a terrible example.

▲

csours 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Those are examples of things that are hard for some to accept as bare facts.

Person Y won the election

Person Y won the election and that is BAD

Person Y won the election and that is GOOD

It is not a matter of denial, it is a matter of what story is made to accept the event.

If you have not had to fight about the topic, you can just make the first bare assertion. The event happened.

If you have fought about the topic and your central nervous system gets activated when you think about it, then the assertion will likely include moral judgement. The event didn't just happened, it happened for a good or bad reason.

▲

UltraSane 6 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry but no one is denying that Trump won the 2024 election in the same way Trump and Republicans have denied that Biden won in 2020 and claiming such is very disingenuous. And saying person Y winning the election is good or bad is a matter of opinion, not fact.

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You are misunderstanding their point. They are not saying that anybody is denying the election results.

A "bare fact", as they put it, is a statement exclusively of fact. Adding the qualifier to the fact makes it no longer a "bare fact". To use their example, "Snoop won the election," is a bare fact and, "Snoop won the election and that's bad," is not a bare fact.

What they are saying is that some people cannot accept "bare fact" statements as such; they tend to add or expect some qualifier to the effect of "that's good" or "that's bad".

▲

UltraSane 6 days ago | parent [-]

I quote OP "Donald Trump was elected president. Can you accept that as a bare fact? Probably not if you've fought with people about it."

	▲	csours 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is meta communication - communicating about communication. In a complex world it is important to understand when and why communication fails. I feel that it is important to accept that some things are hard to talk about, and it is important to understand why those things are hard to talk about. It is hard to communicate rationally while the fight or flight response is engaged. It is hard to communicate rationally to people who either explicitly want to hurt you or who don't mind if you are harmed.
	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That quote is consistent with what I wrote. If a quarrel (or a physical fight) breaks out over a discussion about a fact then it’s likely that the parties involved with the quarrel aren’t accepting the fact as “bare” (per the meaning I take from OP’s comment). That is to say, they implicitly or explicitly include the “that’s good” or “that’s bad” qualifier alongside the fact rather than accepting it as a “bare” statement of fact.

▲

csours 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I also am not denying that Trump won.

I am saying that acceptance is complicated.

Yes people have strong opinions.

Denying that strong opinions exist harms communication.

▲

lupusreal 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> No one is denying that Trump won the election

Not strictly true, is it? There's a bizarre theory floating around in some liberal circles that Elon Musk somehow stole the election using Starlink satellites. And in years past, George Bush stealing his election was a pretty popular theory.

▲

UltraSane 6 days ago | parent [-]

Trump still says he won the last election.

	▲	immibis 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Which makes him ineligible to be the president next year, but his side doesn't care about consistency
	▲	lupusreal 6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I didn't say otherwise.