Intelligence Signalling: why we do it, and why it matters
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- We spend a lot of time showing off how intelligent we are, or worrying about how intelligent we aren't, or praising others for their intelligence. And we are not the only species that behaves this way.
This behaviour of ours is a big part of our success as a species. But why do we do it? This presentation tries to answer that question, and explores some ways we could do it better
0:00 Agenda
1:39 Examples of Intelligence Signalling
11:29 The evolutionary biology of signalling
24:48 Intelligence signalling in science
39:33 You are an intelligence signaller, and that's ok!
47:12 How to speed up scientific progress
EDIT: followup!
A friend of mine objected to this that it seemed rather unfalsifiable. He asked me for a prediction that my theory makes that might not be true in its absence. I couldn't think of anything at the time, but now I may have something.
Sport, broadly defined, is a "cultural universal" - all cultures do it. Boardgames are not. They are two realted things. In sport you compete, a friendly way, to stratify by physical prowess. With boardgames you do the same thing with mental prowess. Probably not the best definitions of either of those things, but they'll do.
I said in my talk that I think that as a culture becomes more civilized, boardgames become a necessity, because people want to discriminate more and more on the basis of mental prowess. Some people might say "no no, intelligence signalling is bullshit, people play boardgames because they're fun, not in order to show off their mental prowess." My hypothesis here would say that the sensation of "fun" is just a way of saying that their mental mental prowess is sufficient that their favourite activity is to exercise it.
So what I think I'd like to do is try to measure "frequency of boardgame playing" (easy to define) in a number of "different cultures" (slightly harder to define) which measurably "have a need for distinction based on mental prowess" (hard to define but not impossible). I expect it would be found that technological development correlates with adoption of boardgames in a way that is a little harder to explain in the absence of intelligence signalling as a motivation for it. - Věda a technologie
As a student, this is really interesting!
PS. 45 mins in. I definitely do intelligence signaling (before I knew what it is) because I want to be cheeky toward others, and for the sake of doing it because it is inherently absurd!
Awesome video. Very valuable information!
Just wondering. To which extend have you explored Buddhism? The core of Buddhism, as a praxeology - not a religion, is that of a handbook on meditation. And depending on the branch, you might find different interpretations of the virtues (patience, compassion etc.) to go along with the meditation. But surely, you're not saying that meditation is virtue signalling? I mean, it could be, "Look at me, I can meditate for 2 hours. What's your record?"
But for the most part it's a private process - one of the few things that we DON'T project on to the whole world. So where do you draw the line between useful things coupled with a genuine desire to share them with other people - and pointless bragging that might occasionally lead to scientific breakthroughs?
Many, many people ask variations of this question about things other than meditation, and is a good question. At some point I want to have an entire lecture dedicated to answering it. There's a lot in the book "The Elephant In the Brain" about it too.
I'd say meditation is intelligence and virtue signalling - remembering that, when I say those things, I do not mean it as an insult, because as I say in this video, I think signalling of various kinds has made the world a better place.
As you say, it's a private process and not bragged about much. But that's also true of philosophical and scientific inquiry. Sometimes people brag about them, but there again, some people have bragged to me about meditation. Many people who meditate (most, for all I know) may never bring it up; but that's also true of many people who entertain philosophical thoughts in their down time.
The thing is that in order for something to be a really convincing signal, it hurts you to brag about it or consciously do it with the goal of signalling. This may sound small but it is REALLY IMPORTANT; it is the subtlest part of the model. Again, The Elephant In The Brain is the number 1 text on this.
> So where do you draw the line between useful things coupled with a genuine desire to share them with other people - and pointless bragging that might occasionally lead to scientific breakthroughs?
I see no line, not even a blurry one. When people claim that they can describe one, I try to stop myself from listening to them, at least until they go back to saying more interesting things. To "share" is to brag, and to brag is to share. "Useful" scientific breakthroughs almost always start with someone working on things others would consider pointless.
Of course, I myself sometimes look at a thing someone is doing and consider it pointless; and I sometimes look a person bragging and think less of them; and I sometimes spend time "sharing things that I consider useful" (like this video...), and then become aware that it came across as bragging about pointless, and then I get sensetive/self conscious about it. All of these things are parts of being human.
Have you read Neil Levy's work on this topic?
As someone on the autistic spectrum, this makes for great active masking advice.
40:10 So I should go around consciously manipulating people into believing I am much better than I am, at whatever they are socially invested in?
When you say "should", I'm assuming you mean "will it benefit me if I do this?"
The answer is that sometimes it will benefit you and sometimes it will hold you back. A place where you should do it, a little bit, is job applications. Everyone knows that CVs have a little exaggeration on them, so if you DON'T exaggerate on your CV you actually look WORSE than you really are. So, you should gauge the amount that others are exaggerating, and exaggerate that amount.
But then once you have a job -or if you are meeting people in a context you are unfamiliar with- it can be a VERY BAD IDEA to try to exaggerate how much you know. Probably, you will eventually get caught - and anyone who you previously fooled will lose the respect for you that you had gained by lying in the first place. Plus, they will generally expect you to be deceitful, arrogant, and unreliable.
When you meet someone who is socially invested in something you know nothing about, the best thing to do is to ask them about it. They will enjoy telling you things. They will enjoy signalling their intelligence to you. When you already know something they are about to say, you can interrupt them to say "yes, I already know THAT part, but what about THIS part?". But you should ONLY do that if that statement is really true.
How does the phenomenon of geniuses tending to be childless (or close to it) fit in with this model? Many of them don't seem to care all that much about whatever they say or do insofar as it might decrease or elevate their social standing. They just work at it obsessively without much regard for the consequences.
Are they a special case or am i misunderstanding something here?
"Many of them don't seem to care all that much about whatever they say or do insofar as it might decrease or elevate their social standing"
You are right that they often do not much *consciously* care. But actually they always have *some* regard for the consequences, and they try to keep it unconscious so as to be more effective. If this sort of thing interests you I recommend Robin Hanson: czcams.com/video/P4lEvvY1r5U/video.html
"How does the phenomenon of geniuses tending to be childless (or close to it) fit in with this model?"
Are you sure about that? I can think of examples and counterexamples. It's true that fertility is somewhat negatively correlated with intelligence, but there are lots of reasons for that.
To be a "genius" you tend to have to be obsessive, and being obsessive can sometimes make one unattractive. It can be helpful for winning some contests, but that doesn't necessarily translate.
Intelligence can HELP you become attractive in some circumstances; this is Geoffrey Miller's research interest.
@@hamish_todd
Thanks for the reply
@@hamish_todd
I think I need time to process what you said in the video as well as to actually read the work of the ppl you mentioned, Geoffrey Miller and Robin Hanson. I think part of my issue with comprehension is that I probably unconsciously thought about the evolutionary strategy of the human species as more like ants or termites or something rather than monkeys or more individually-selected strategies. Though I think on reflection that is probably too extreme a view.
Anyways another question occurred to me while rewatching your video. How much of an issue do you think it is for the goal of scientific progress that there are so many disciplines/fields modeling very small and localized pictures of the world without necessarily having to integrate that picture with those being made in other fields? Is it even a problem, is it a necessary evil, or is there a path forward in your view? I personally wonder if a lot of the idiosyncrasies of modern science would be rectified if scientists had to give a proper ontological account of what it is they're even talking about.
A related question I had was how far do you think computer science might go in terms of serving as a unifying basis for theology, science, mathematics, etc. You mentioned somewhere in your video that Newton was perhaps the greatest genius in history, but I think his contemporary Leibniz was even more insightful, and he even anticipated base 2 and information science as being the unifying basis for these endeavors. The digitising of communications and knowledge storage has already been achieved but what do you think of Leibniz's idea of a Universal Character?
"How much of an issue do you think it is for the goal of scientific progress that there are so many disciplines/fields modeling very small and localized pictures of the world without necessarily having to integrate that picture with those being made in other fields?"
This is a HUGE problem. And it is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping people would think about when seeing the lecture!
My preferred solution is "Prediction Markets", where scientists use their knowledge to make bets about the results of not-yet-done experiments. If there is a "known result" relevant to some experiment being proposed, then even scientists outside the field it is in will be incentivized to bet in the PM.
@@hamish_todd
The prediction markets idea is pretty interesting & sounds like it would be pretty trivial to implement and see if it works.
Also I wanted to mention before i leave I came across your channel via your geometric programming video which I found pretty cool. Anyways thanks for your time
33:20 I find this unconvincing personally. given that the greatest scientists are probably going to be among the ones who find them most intrinsic pleasure in their field, I take these quotes at their word, and I know you said you don't think they're lying but, is it really signaling for them to just speak to what is true for them? Surely there are other reasons you would express this, like the satisfaction of putting a feeling into words, or seeking human connection with others who have the same level of deep interest. If that's not true, then to me the alternative that comes out of that is something like "all spoken language is signaling" which I am just not inclined to believe.
46:20 With no regard to whether or not intelligence signalers "beat" virtue signalers at their own game, the following phrase implies the virtue signalers do not create things that help people, which may have been unintended but it comes off as completely disregarding the ways that virtue signaling can work toward goodness, for example in church communities that have a lot of programs dedicated toward supporting their local communities.
> phrase implies the virtue signalers do not create things that help people
I apologize, I did not intend to make that implication. I think virtue signallers are a HUGE source of positive things in the world that help people. I wanted to say something much less bold, which is more like "intelligence signallers OFTEN beat virtue signallers at their own game". For example, Alan Turing inventing the computer did more to help people than if he had used his intellect to become a doctor - even if he was a spectacularly good doctor.
Whether intelligence signallers generally create more for the world than virtue signallers is an important question, in my opinion, and I am not sure. But in any case, much of the good in the world comes from virtue signallers.
(though of course, every human does a bit of both)
> is it really signalling for them to just speak to what is true for them?
I'd say yes!
Sometimes people boast untruthfully, like someone saying "Yeah I once drove a helicopter" when they haven't. You only tend to see this among little kids, because adults know more about the world and what to be skeptical about.
Adults know that if you want to make people think better of you, what you say has to be basically truthful, and subtle. You only do it when you have a really good opportunity to do it, like someone asks "so why DO you spend so much time on maths?"
Again, I think Bertrand Russell was being completely honest when he said he finds maths beautiful! But you have to ask, WHY does he find "beauty" to be the right word for his experience of maths? And why maths specifically? The answer is to do with others being impressed by maths. He doesn't consciously think "oh I should go into maths to impress people". Most of this "manipulation" is unconscious. But he does want to impress people! And his body and personality has ended up the way it is because humans want to impress each other in this way!
Ok re: virtue signaling; in retrospect, I should have guessed that you didn't mean what I thought at first, glad to hear tho and I agree!
As for the other thing, I do understand that something said being literally true doesn't make it not signaling, even if the 'intent' to signal isn't conscious. We are for sure very social creatures that place a high value on our own perceived status. The reason I'm not fully convinced for a few of your examples is because it feels like an incomplete explanation. I mentioned for example desire for human connection as another internal driver that people often have for saying things, there may be various others that aren't as simple to express in words. Like it assumes an overly simplistic model of human behavior, I think, even though your logic from the evolutionary biology etc. makes sense. But hey its good to keep in mind, especially considering we generally resist attributing motives that aren't fully conscious to one another or ourselves- something to think about!
Irony?
@@RecursionIs Errr, I do not know what this means!
The irony is not lost on me no 😁 and indeed I talk about this in the lecture