[xerxespoy]

> At their core, social networks are primarily about one thing: Building social capital through signaling.

Maybe for the author.

People also use social networks without expecting or requiring any net social "capital" benefit through "signalling".

Examples:

- keeping in touch with people (privately or publicly)

- inform others about something they may be interested in (without needing or requiring acknowledgement)

- lessening loneliness

- gathering or dispensing intel on a topic

- filling in time / looking for entertainment

I can readily think of many more reasons than the singlular one of signalling to heighten social status. I'm sure that occurs, but listing it as a primary reason cast the article immediately in disfavour for this reader.

[roywiggins]

The problem with "signalling" theories is that they can explain nearly anything. Why did you do X? Why, to show other people that you are the sort of person who does X. Even if you didn't know it at the time.

It's hard to see how you would go about falsifying it. It's way too convenient as an explanation for whatever you want. It's less a theory and more a very particular lens to view the world through. Nearly anything can be slotted into it.

[Judgmentality]

Any theory that can't be invalidated is not worth seriously debating. It may be true or it may not - what difference does it make if it's impossible to know?

Person A: "Social signalling explains all of human behavior!"

Person B: "But how do we know that's true?"

Person A: "Who cares? It explains everything."

Person B: "So what can we do with this knowledge?"

Person A: "Explain things we already observed to be true."

Person B: "So what have we gained from this information?"

Person A: "A theory that explains everything."

Person B: "But that theory doesn't actually teach us anything new?"

Person A: "Yep! We already know everything! Wooo!"

[nojs]

I think the difference is in how extensively you broadcast it. I like gardening, but I don’t care if nobody knows that I do. I think this is evidence that I’m not doing it for signalling reasons. So in that sense it’s falsifiable.

[kubanczyk]

The theory has one big problem, but you are misdiagnosing it.

> Why did you do X? Why, to show other people

Try this approach instead:

Would X ("a trip to Athens") happen if there was no perspective to ever mention X in any future communication between humans? (Yes/No)

In this take the theory can become verifiable with some work.

Alas, the assumption is that you know you'll be cut off from transferring* bits of information from your brain to other brains. As humans are very social, this is almost useless. In actual world, even if you're going solo to Mars one-way, you probably will communicate back to Earth and more colonists may come join you (think => social status). If I am sailing around the world alone, I can still expect to return and write memoirs. So the only remaining things are the most shameful i-am-never-telling-that-anyone personal secrets. And that's quite a narrow use.

So, saying that Ivy League wouldn't happen in <some out-of-this-world scenario where humans do not socially interact> is very impractical.

[*] I'm saying the theory doesn't judge whether the signal (the information that flows) is to be trusted or untrusted. I think most commenters here wrongly conflate "signalling" with "slightly lying".

[mushbino]

I agree with your assessment and honestly, it's refreshing to see. A lot of writers/podcasters have made their name by diminishing issues as being purely about signaling alone. It's not possible for some to imagine someone has certain beliefs for their own value. For example, they believe people support issues, not because they believe in them, but purely to show people in their social circles that they are a part of the club. While this may be true in some cases, I find it hard to believe it''s large enough to be of any particular concern. Also, it's a pretty boring non-issue to make ones name on.

[bcherny]

You’re both right. In philosophy, you call this an “ultimate” cause, vs. a “proximate” cause.

You push a marble with your finger, and it moves. Why? Because the momentum from your finger was transferred into the marble when you touched it (proximate cause); equally correctly, it moved because you pushed it (ultimate cause).

People are complex. Maybe you post for more than one reason.

[globular-toast]

None of your examples are unique to social networks. There are many ways to keep in touch with people and many ways to gather information. These methods are usually superior in most respects too. What social media, like facebook, does do, though, is bundle it all together. It's like a supermarket.

But it goes beyond just being a supermarket. It has a unique selling point: the ability to signal. In my experience, the number of people who use social networks merely as email/news/entertainment replacements without succumbing to status signalling is very small.

[irae]

My impression is that the author is analyzing the successful social networks. Think about all the ones that died in the process of Facebook/Instagram/Twitter, etc getting to where they are? All of those lacked ways to "building social capital through signaling".

I might be wrong though, didn't put a lot of thought on it, but friendster, orkut, myspace, and many others were not quite as good in signaling or proof of x as the ones that are now well stablished.

[cat199]

while i agree with the sentiment, if you are viewing this through a 'mass media theory' kind of lens, it can still hold true / be useful, even in the given examples