TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Signaling as a Service

202 pointsby antdkeabout 5 years ago

22 comments

roywigginsabout 5 years ago
My instinct is that the model proves too much. Same way evopsych just-so stories were able to &quot;explain&quot; everything. Once you have a theory that purports to explain every single thing, maybe your theory is actually too vague to be useful, or you&#x27;re just telling yourself stories.<p>For instance, while most donations aren&#x27;t anonymous, I&#x27;d wager most people don&#x27;t know how much their friends donate and who to. Sure, the organization knows, but unless you go out of your way to tell people that you gave $50 or $500 or $5000 to MSF last year, nobody will know. It&#x27;s not an <i>anonymous</i> donation, but you&#x27;re not signalling to anyone unless you stick a bumper sticker on your car or whatever.
评论 #22746362 未加载
评论 #22747194 未加载
评论 #22748195 未加载
评论 #22745799 未加载
评论 #22755315 未加载
评论 #22746697 未加载
didericisabout 5 years ago
Am I alone in finding a lot of signaling transparent and kind of repellant? I realize I&#x27;m signaling to a certain crowd by saying that and am not denying that I participate, but it&#x27;s never seemed hidden to me.<p>I want to live in a world in which more time is spent increasing merit and competency rather than advertising some sort of proxy. I understand that both merit and competency are impractical to judge without any sort of easily identifiable signal, but the inaccuracy of a lot of those signals and the amount of time, money, and effort wasted on them is kind of mind numbing.
评论 #22745806 未加载
评论 #22744593 未加载
评论 #22744753 未加载
评论 #22743528 未加载
评论 #22746432 未加载
评论 #22746681 未加载
评论 #22745180 未加载
op03about 5 years ago
Signaling does not explain 90% of human behavior. Stopped reading right there.<p>That kind of talk only an Economist can come up with, and sell to folks who have never heard about a subject called Psychology.<p>Economists are a bunch of people, who only recently discovered human behavior needed to be taken into account, to explain everything inexplicable about the economy. That mistake is how we end up with Alan Greenspan standing around expressing &quot;shock and disbelief&quot; at the 2008 meltdown.<p>If Signaling explains everything about human behavior what are the 418 books ranked above (the one in the article) in Amazon&#x27;s Psychology category talking about?
评论 #22746182 未加载
评论 #22743476 未加载
评论 #22744938 未加载
wilgabout 5 years ago
&quot;Signaling&quot; has never struck me as a particularly useful model of human behavior. It feels like just a repackaging of cynicism in more &quot;objective&quot; language.<p>This article doesn&#x27;t seem to have a lot of real insight, other than to loosely (and half incorrectly) justify various beliefs and misunderstandings the author has about selected social interactions. I guess that&#x27;s fine, but doesn&#x27;t seem particularly useful.
评论 #22746388 未加载
franciscopabout 5 years ago
This is amazing and perfectly explains something that I didn&#x27;t understand until now: in Japan there are A LOT of sock shops. The tall socks that show above the shoes sure I get it, but I didn&#x27;t understand about the normal&#x2F;small ones and just attributed it to the normal over-consumerism of Japan. But in fact there are a lot of situations (restaurants, some offices, etc) where you take your shoes off and socks become visible clothing.<p>&gt; So how are you going to distribute the signal message of your sneakers? You simply wear them where other people can see them. The obvious constraint here is that your signal distribution is limited to things you can display in public. This is why people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on shoes but not on socks.
si1entstillabout 5 years ago
I found this a good read, but I don&#x27;t feel that Fortnight&#x27;s business model is really as novel as the author suggests. Free to play games (MMOs in particular) had been leveraging this consumer behavior for quite a while. I think it is the audience and their perception that have changed.<p>(This is largely anecdotal, but) 7-10 years ago, a game having a cash shop of _any_ kind caused it to be shunned by a large portion of the (US) gaming community. However, the model proved so effective (particularly with the &quot;non-traditional gamer&quot;), that it eventually became the norm. The market shifted that way as it grew and now the community is resigned to it. Don&#x27;t get me wrong, there are still a multitude of games that follow the traditional model, but those aren&#x27;t the cash cows of the industry because the market is simply smaller.<p>With Fortnight, I feel that Epic succeeded because they took a known formula, applied it to a budding, ultra-competitive genre, gave it an unassuming art style that had mass appeal, and made the game play simple and approachable.
评论 #22744781 未加载
Procrastesabout 5 years ago
&gt; charitable behavior is heavily driven by visibility (hardly any donations are anonymous)<p>That doesn&#x27;t bear out with what I see. Looking at a dataset of 2.8 million donations through our site, roughly 20% are anonymous. That&#x27;s not the majority, but it&#x27;s much more than &quot;hardly any.&quot;
评论 #22743662 未加载
评论 #22743713 未加载
Spivakabout 5 years ago
I don&#x27;t want to detract too much from the author&#x27;s main point because Tinder&#x27;s super likes are a form of signaling but they have the opposite effect the that the author (and Tinder themselves) makes it seem and it&#x27;s a lot more interesting. Using super likes or paying for Tinder Plus&#x2F;Gold is a signal of desperation and so people don&#x27;t readily admit to it. The status signal on Tinder is not needing to pay and ultimately not needing to use Tinder at all.<p>It&#x27;s such an odd dynamic but I&#x27;m thankful for it since it gives me more information about a guy.
评论 #22747027 未加载
评论 #22746201 未加载
评论 #22747122 未加载
评论 #22746019 未加载
Timpyabout 5 years ago
I don&#x27;t agree that signaling can explain 90% of human behavior, however I think you can find signals (intentional or otherwise) in about 90% of human behavior.<p>When I became aware of my signaling habits I tried to reduce my signals, only to find that there&#x27;s no &quot;opt out&quot;. If you need a car, no matter what car you drive it will send a signal. No car sends a signal. If I want to wear the same plain clothes every day like a uniform, this is still participating in signalling. It&#x27;s like mistaking 0 for null, I&#x27;ve signaled that I care more about pragmatism than fashion, but it&#x27;s still a signal. While I&#x27;m sure the book recommended in the article is fascinating, I think I shouldn&#x27;t read it because I won&#x27;t be able to get outside my own head for a long time if I do.
saagarjhaabout 5 years ago
&gt; Another point of evidence is the lack of luxury software products. People spend absurd amounts of money on jewellery, handbags and cars, but I can’t think of a piece of software with an even remotely similar price tag.<p>The author isn&#x27;t looking hard enough: professional software frequently goes for many thousands of dollars.
评论 #22743323 未加载
评论 #22746108 未加载
评论 #22744615 未加载
评论 #22743456 未加载
评论 #22743567 未加载
评论 #22743603 未加载
评论 #22747127 未加载
mud_dauberabout 5 years ago
I didn&#x27;t get the same negative reaction as many readers have, maybe because I felt this is how humans <i>do</i> behave, not how they <i>should</i> behave.<p>It would be interesting to see a dataset of people&#x27;s t-shirt collections mapped against their consumer preferences. My two cents.
motohagiographyabout 5 years ago
I used to write about fashion, and the reason I took it seriously was because it was how people signalled their beliefs about power every morning when they got dressed. Luxury goods are just one very narrow dimension. The only question is what you perceive to represent power, and who you intend to signal that to.<p>Linux was a great example, where originally you could signal your technical skill by just having it installed at home. Today the equivalent would probably be having a functional language on your CV. It&#x27;s a costly signal in that you need to make a non-trivial investment in learning it to be able to claim it. It also says that what you perceive to be power is esoteric knowledge with intelligence, and you are looking for people who meet that level. Signals are also tells.<p>What fashion companies did is recognized powerful people, and watched how they signalled to one another, and then sold that to everyone else, while flattering the powerful ones enough to adopt them. Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger made billions on that.<p>Luxury goods like say, a handbag or a BMW 3-Series, are things you can pay enough for to show that you have money, or in the latter case, credit. If you think money and credit represents power, you will signal that to other people who think the same. Some people think an Ivy education or an advanced degree is power, which it can be in political and finance circles, but not in say, car racing or sailing circles.<p>Facebook really was the original online luxury good, as it showed you believed in ivy schools, fame, technology, and gossip, but now it&#x27;s the same as a hollowed out haute couture fashion house owned by a conglomerate that makes its money selling perfume in big box drug stores and airports.<p>Apple is a luxury company that sells tech, as their real product is privacy and a unified brand experience, and not selling users to advertisers like almost every other platform out there. I think they have risk under Cook&#x27;s vision as he&#x27;s just not sexy enough to carry the brand much further. You can see it with his whole push with old celebrities and wholesomeness, I think the lack of eros makes them vulnerable.<p>Twitter seems to be trying to upgrade its brand to a luxury product, with the opportunity to be a channel for infinite minor status upgrades beyond the blue check. If you can persuade hundreds of millions of people to put up with the character limit and whole culture of the place, it&#x27;s like the indignity of economy class in airlines, where people will pay stupid amounts of money for small mercies.<p>Signalling is a rich enough metaphor to capture dynamics in pretty much any human endeavour. Such an interesting area.
评论 #22746230 未加载
pipeworkabout 5 years ago
The title of this has nothing to do with webrtc or the type of signaling I was expecting here on HN.
评论 #22743068 未加载
评论 #22743175 未加载
charlieflowersabout 5 years ago
There&#x27;s a transcript of an interview with the book author here [1].<p>Personally, I&#x27;m impressed. There&#x27;s depth and insight here. I plan to buy and read the book.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;conversations-with-tyler&#x2F;robin-hanson-tyler-cowen-signaling-the-elephant-in-the-brain-e1444b69baa7" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;conversations-with-tyler&#x2F;robin-hanson-tyl...</a>
评论 #22743910 未加载
评论 #22743780 未加载
评论 #22743712 未加载
peter_d_shermanabout 5 years ago
Excerpts:<p>&quot;Fortnite has seen even greater levels of financial success: In the last two years combined, the game has brought in more than <i>$4 billion</i> in revenue – and like Tinder, it too monetizes primarily with signal amplification.&quot;<p>[...]<p>&quot;In contrast to mobile games however, Fortnite is also free to win. None of the in-app purchases available impact the core gameplay. You can’t buy more powerful weapons or stronger armor that give you an advantage over other players.&quot;<p>[...]<p>&quot;Fortnite’s monetization model is based on cosmetics: The skin your character wears; the looks of your glider and the tools you use; the way your character dances (emotes) – all of these are signaling amplifiers with different signal messages to <i>uniquely express yourself</i> in the game. And you have to <i>purchase</i> them.&quot;
评论 #22747691 未加载
ro00776aasabout 5 years ago
As a &quot;watch person&quot; I generally tune out when someone brings up the &quot;Rolex vs Casio&quot; example.<p>I do not care what people think of me. To wit, I choose to live in a place (for various reasons) where I deal with racism on a daily basis. It&#x27;s hard to care about status when the average person around you is ignorant enough to believe they&#x27;re on the winning side of some kind of race math.<p>I do care what is attached to my body or inhabits my personal space. I use a Mac mostly because it looks good. I drive a BMW because of the level of trim inside. Ditto various designer clothing brands.<p>My Submariner is almost never off my wrist and is honestly one of my favorite (non-human) things. It&#x27;s built like a tank, is appropriate for any occasion and yes, is more accurate than I need.<p>As a watch person I also see the value of a Casio (as do collectors) or an Apple Watch. But I only have one watch slot on my body and my favorite happens to be a Sub.<p>I <i>do not</i> evaluate people by their watches. I know lots of people don&#x27;t value the things I do, may not like watches or may not care. All I learn by looking at someone&#x27;s watch is whether or not they&#x27;re also watch people.<p>Often, if someone is wearing a watch that costs 4+ digits, there&#x27;s an interesting story behind it. They may have bought it to celebrate something or it may be one of a collection. I recently made a friend after asking him about his AP. Turned out he bought it towards the end of his first career, which was in the same area as my first career.<p>There was a time when a mechanical watch was near the pinnacle of technology. Watchmakers were the &quot;rocket scientists&quot; of their day. A lot of iconic watches have really interesting histories that can go back over 100 years.<p>They&#x27;re still at the pinnacle of craftsmanship and aesthetics. They&#x27;re the opposite of general, disposable consumer culture. They&#x27;re built to last decades, hold their value well and are often multi-generational. They&#x27;re green.<p>Investing in a mechanical watch today helps keep that tradition alive. If your reaction to a Rolex is eye rolling cynicism, you&#x27;re poorer for it.
anonytraryabout 5 years ago
A person may buy sneakers to run, or a person may buy sneakers to cause other people to think that he runs. Regardless, the person bought the sneakers and why he bought it was baked into the price.<p>This is why popular things cost more money. It&#x27;s almost like the mere fact that an active market exists increases my probability of participating in it.
naragabout 5 years ago
Also, and more specifically HN relevant: how it&#x27;s exploited in SaaS environments.
Sophistifunkabout 5 years ago
How could this theory be applied to fund dev tools, I wonder?
评论 #22747910 未加载
评论 #22747165 未加载
essetiabout 5 years ago
Does someone knows how the images&#x2F;pictures are made? is it by hand or is it a tool to do that kind of drawing?
scott_paulabout 5 years ago
The projection in this article is strong. This is the product of a very alien mind, to me. Intentional signaling is irritating to others, and often self-destructive. I really doubt most people&#x27;s actions are driven by signaling, except in particularly mentally ill clumps of humanity.<p>In other words: what do you mean &quot;we&quot;, weirdo?
评论 #22743686 未加载
评论 #22743702 未加载
patconabout 5 years ago
This article makes a ton of sense to me.<p>Also, it aligns with my guilty belief&#x2F;fear that this paper is onto something:<p>Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;10.3389&#x2F;fpsyg.2017.01924&#x2F;full" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.frontiersin.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;10.3389&#x2F;fpsyg.2017.0192...</a><p>Basically, the paper hypothesizes that all of conscious experience is just an artifact of the messaging layer between the real players -- our subconsciouses -- aka the geometry of our neural connectomes. (my spin)<p>tl;dr - Consciousness is pretty much just CapnProto or TCP&#x2F;IP, which we happen to perceive as meaningful, when it&#x27;s really just the chatter of subconsciouses shaking the air between themselves in complex ways, to signal things about the structures within.<p>And the next question: Communicate about what? Maybe just finding and gathering and converting structures with high degrees of symmetry out in the milieu. Like attracts like. Similar structures self-persist and reinforce one another. If similar enough, they can be merged and together sustained with the least energetic