Please or Register to create posts and topics.

High-virtue match with high-virtue folks, and low-virtue are left with each other

From "Virtue Signaling":

In species with social monogamy such as ours, individuals should assortatively mate with respect to virtues, because the competitive mating market should ensure that high-virtue individuals prefer each other, leaving lower-virtue individuals no choice but to settle for each other.

Miller starts from the premise that people want and value virtue in others, which makes sense.

And since high-virtue people have an important value to offer, they are likely to demand the same back, which also makes sense.

For the same reson, collaborators tend to mate with collaborators.

And while Miller talks about relationships, the same is true for friendships, in my opinion: high virtue folks usually don't like low-virtue folks.

Of course, this is a tendency, but it's a quite strong tendency in my opinoin, and I've seen it repeatedly around me.

The Pull-Up Effect

High-virtue people who are also high-power and leaders also tend to exert a "positive pull" in this case.

Since not generally high-virtue people want to remain around the high-value, high-virtue guy, they're likely to conform to the high-virtue man's behavior and expectations.
Of course, part of it is superficial and part of it is manipulative.
But, also depending on the individual, a good part of it can also be true, actual personal change and improvement.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I'm thinking whether high-quality and high-virtue overlap.
I suppose high-virtue pertains more towards morals and ethics.
High-quality would include morals and ethics with skillsets and character.

For the same reson, collaborators tend to mate with collaborators.

I'm thinking whether the lover style of seduction is considered collaborative.
I would say yes, exchanging good genes and fun with the other person.
Serial, short-term collaborations are still collaborations.

High-virtue people who are also high-power and leaders also tend to exert a "positive pull" in this case.

Since not generally high-virtue people want to remain around the high-value, high-virtue guy, they're likely to conform to the high-virtue man's behavior and expectations.
Of course, part of it is superficial and part of it is manipulative.
But, also depending on the individual, a good part of it can also be true, actual personal change and improvement.

Personally, I pretended to be high-virtue a lot during job interviews.
Always espoused all the instances of my great teamwork and caring for the greater whole.
I do feel that I am expected to play the game of virtual-signalling during interviews to show that I get corporate virtues.
And sort of buy into the bigger manipulation of showing support for the management, owners and the whole.

But all this is sort of an excuse.
I just wanted the job at those points in time.

I realised that, if you can tell great stories about teamwork and your value-adding behaviours, people will regard you as high-virtue.
I suppose that this is a form of virtue-signalling but in a more socially acceptable manner, especially if you build people up in those stories.
This is in a way manipulation because you painted yourself as high-virtue and value-giving.
People are more inclined to give value to you because of the way you portrayed yourself and not necessarily of any tangible value that you gave.

On the Mike Tyson video, it was mentioned that you can't know a person's true character if the value differential and power differential are too huge.
Probably this is true for virtues as well.
Alpha Male Strategies says it is unwise for a high-quality individual to hop back into an environment with low-quality individuals with nothing to lose.
Better to bring a bodyguard or stay out completely.
Too many leechers.

Lucio Buffalmano and Stef have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoStef

I'm thinking whether high-quality and high-virtue overlap.
I suppose high-virtue pertains more towards morals and ethics.
High-quality would include morals and ethics with skillsets and character.

Good question, and I see it the same way as you do.
There is an overlap -up to a certain point, of course-.

I'm thinking whether the lover style of seduction is considered collaborative.
I would say yes, exchanging good genes and fun with the other person.
Serial, short-term collaborations are still collaborations.

As a rule of thumb, from the woman's perspective, there is more room for collaboration in long-term, and there is more room for cheating/manipulating in the short-term.
But there is plenty of instances and ways in which lover-style as well as one-night stands can be win-win (and they often are).

Personally, I pretended to be high-virtue a lot during job interviews.
Always espoused all the instances of my great teamwork and caring for the greater whole.

Yes, that makes sense.

As a rule of thumb, the closer you are to someone and the more they look up to you, the more you can "pull up".
But a company on interview day, it usually means that it's a material type of exchange (not very close), and since it's a group, rather than an individual, people rarely look up to brands and companies (exceptions apply).

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

I'm thinking whether high-quality and high-virtue overlap.
I suppose high-virtue pertains more towards morals and ethics.
High-quality would include morals and ethics with skillsets and character.

Good question, and I see it the same way as you do.
There is an overlap -up to a certain point, of course-.

I checked out your book review.
I am keen to read the book "Virtue Signalling" as well.
I believe that I can better appreciate how these 2 concepts diverge: high-virtue vs high-quality.

I'm thinking whether the lover style of seduction is considered collaborative.
I would say yes, exchanging good genes and fun with the other person.
Serial, short-term collaborations are still collaborations.

As a rule of thumb, from the woman's perspective, there is more room for collaboration in long-term, and there is more room for cheating/manipulating in the short-term.
But there is plenty of instances and ways in which lover-style as well as one-night stands can be win-win (and they often are).

I do see this the same way.
For dating, there are more risks in the short-term for women due to cheating/manipulation as you mentioned.
But, also as you say, many people (men & women) have positive experiences on their short-term interactions.

As a rule of thumb, the closer you are to someone and the more they look up to you, the more you can "pull up".
But a company on interview day, it usually means that it's a material type of exchange (not very close), and since it's a group, rather than an individual, people rarely look up to brands and companies (exceptions apply).

That makes a lot of sense.
I can understand how startups use this to their advantage when competing for hires against the large multinational corporations.
Because the core founding team is small.
The founders can use a more personal approach together with espousing the vision and ideals to persuade people to join their team.
In a way "pulling up" to their startup virtues.

"Start With Why" is a great book on this, which you reviewed.
In a way, this can be used for manipulation to get employees to invest in the whole.
But it's also possible to use these persuasion principles to channel a focused effort towards pro-social endeavours.