[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.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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").

[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.

[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.

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.