Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Virtue-signaling is here to stay becuase it's a sexual strategy

We will define virtue-signaling as:

Virtue signaling is the conspicuous expression of moral values

But why would people do that?

Sure intelligent people should realize that it looks try-hard and fake.
And they must know that many of the latest virtue-signaling political battles aren't really the most effective ways of tackling problems, no?

So why do people keep pestering everyone around about their supposedly good moral standing?

The answer is obvious and easy: because they are (unconsciously) trying to gain social status and sexual market value.

Virtue Signaling As Conspicuous Indicator of Moral Value

Veblen introduced "conspicuous consumption" a long time ago, and it has since become a well-accepted theory of sexual market dynamics.

Conspicuous consumption postulates that men seek to buy and consume status symbols that signal to the world their social status and their wealth.
Conspicuous consumption says: "mate with me, I got the goods, babe".
And that's why most people are wired into a race of work and consumption. Much of Western consumerism is fueled by advertising fitness for sexual competition, and that's why it ain't going away any time soon (sigh!).

See now the parallels?
Virtue signaling is the equivalent of conspicuous consumption, but instead of advertising resources, it advertises moral values.
Virtue signaling says: "mate with me, I'm a considerate and dependable man, I care about people and I will not cheat and abandon you".

How Virtue Signaling Works

Going around and telling people "I'm a virtuous man" would not work so well.
True fitness strategy work with "handicap principles", and must be as reliable as possible.

So virtue signalers espouse -and act on- certain ideologies that supposedly represent good virtue, good heart, and pro-social attitudes.

It works like this: cultures interpret certain ideological positions as “good” or “bad” and assign “good” or “bad” etiquettes to people depending on which ideological positions they espouse.

People who espouse good ideological positions are seen as being magnanimous, kind and “having a good heart”.
But how do we decide which ideological positions are good and which ones are "bad"?

Well, some of them are obvious and need no discussions.
You are "bad" and antisocial -and deservedly so- if you think that slavery is a fair way of getting work done.
And you if think that not investing in public transport is the way to go you are also obviously not helping the environment.

But some other positions are fuzzier. And they are not based on obvious moral precepts, on science, real data, or what really works.
Some ideologies are mostly dependent on what's culturally dominant -and who won the cultural war-.

The cultural influence of virtue-signaling

The ideologies that people must espouse to be good virtue-signaler are mostly culturally-produced.

Take the typical virtue signaler of today:

  • Protests against "climate change"
  • Buys C02 surcharges to "offset" his trip
  • "Supports" women (sure women are desperate for his help)
  • Does not judge women on their sexual mores (sure not)

But since none of those are actually doing much to help anything, in 100 years it will probably be very different things that men will virtue signal about.
The above signal just happened to be part of a culturally influential ideology, for one reason or another.

Don't Women See Through the Emptiness of VS?

"Supporting" women does little to help women, that should be obvious.
"Fighting climate change" with an electric car does little to "fight" the change, that is one Google search away to find out.

Don't people -and women- just see through the meaninglessness of it?

If you are asking that, you don't yet see the point of virtue signaling.
Virtue signaling is less about solving issues and more about advertising one's own character for personal gains.
That's it.

And since we are in the game of personal advertisement, and not fixing problems, people are judged at the advertisement level, not over what really works.

The Repressive Virtue Signalers

And now enters the nasty twist: since virtue signaling is also based on social climbing, what's culturally dominant becomes a self-reinforcing cycle.

And it ends up functioning like a repressive system to silence oppositions. No matter how helpful or unhelpful that opposition really was -and I'm not saying that all of them were helpful, of course-.

So if a scientist comes out with research showing that nuclear energy might not be that bad after all, what happens?
That scientist is attacked right away by the virtue-signaling crowd because he provides a great sacrificial lamb for their virtue-signaling efforts: tear down that man, so that I look more virtuous by comparison.

It's easy to do because the cultural dogma in the West is "nuclear power is bad, whoever supports it is against the environment".

Leveraging Virtue-Signaling For Good

Women aren't going to stop virtue-signaling to advertise kindness, gain social acceptance, and reap the benefits of "feeling like a good person"

And sure as hell men aren't going to stop virtue-signaling for pussy: they'd do much more stupid things for that.

That's why, ideally, a good society would use virtue-signaling based on what really works, and not on what's randomly fashion.
The West has improved a lot, to be honest.
Virtue signaling on cutting down emissions is not bad for the world. But we can do even better.

Does Virtue Signaling Work?

Does virtue-signaling work to gain social acceptance, social status, and getting laid?

Yes, it does.

When you see a strategy used by a large percentage of the population, it's either everyone is spectacularly wrong, which is possible but unlikely in evolution, or it does confer certain benefits.

Of course, virtue-signaling doesn't work that great for short-term dating and casual sex, but it works well for long-term dating.
David Buss' research shows that for long term mates, "kindness" was the most sought after trait.

Sure, not sexy and exciting, but since it's not a casual sex strategy, it must not be sexy, edgy, and exciting.
It must be reliable, altruistic, kind... Like a good future dad should be (just maybe a tad housebroken :).

Chill: There's No Point Fighting Virtue-Signaling

Virtue-signaling is a social status and sexual strategy.

And people will never stop trying to climb social hierarchies, seek acceptance and support, or, God forbid, getting laid.

So chill and stop getting all worked up against the virtue-signaling warriors and the moral police.
That's truly an unwinnable war, my friends.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

VIRTUE SIGNALING VS VIRTUE COMPETING

In this thread we saw there are two different components to the "power dynamics of morals".

For brevity and simplicity there is:

  1. Virtue signaling: "look at me how good I am, I uphold and defend morals and ethics, so trust me, pair up with me for the long sexual game, and collaborate with me"
  2. Virtue competing: "look at how bad you're behaving, you make it harder for me to play and win, so I'm trying to restrict your freedom by framing you and your actions as immoral"

Replying to Matthew from that thread:

Would saying black people needing support be the former (virtue signaling) or the latter (you're disempowering me and making me feel inferior)?
I'm thinking that it is the former.
Because white people don't feel inferior to black people.

Yeah, you guess right.
The virtue-signaling component of white people's "support", in that case, is likely mostly virtue signaling.

Of course, let's not forget that some people are also being (partially) genuine, but if we're focusing on the moralizing for self-interest part, then that's (far) more signaling than competing.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?