Mvolz

Signalling theory as a formal concept originated in the field of animal behaviour (ethology) in the Dutch ethologist Tinbergen’s book “Inleiding tot de diersociologie“ (1946) and later found purchase in economics, where it was introduced in the context of job markets by Michael Spence (1973), and finally into political culture, i.e. in the form of "virtue signalling." This is partially a pre-amble to Holly Elmore's Virtue signaling is sometimes the best or the only metric we have, because I felt some of the readers could have benefited from more background knowledge. What is a signal? A signal is simply a unit of communication. Although it’s often used in humans to talk about non-verbal forms of communication, this is likely because the classic examples of signalling theory in non-human animals are often, though not always, non-verbal. A peacock's attractive tail is intended to impress peahens. Analogously, one might think if a man wants to signal (communicate) that he's rich to potential mates, he might purchase an expensive car or watch to impress women. But signals don't have to be non-verbal. In animal behaviour there are a variety of definitions of a signal, but essentially a signal is anything evolved to change the behaviour of the receiver[1]. Signals can be an action, like waving your arm, or chemical, like the pheromones an ant leaves for others to follow. They can also be verbal, like the mating call of a bird. Or they can be a colour or design of body morphology, like our peacock’s tail, or in humans, height or facial symmetry. Signals don't have to be cognitively intentional As we step away from animal behaviour, the definition of a signal as something that specifically has to evolve to change the behaviour of the receiver can sometimes be a tricky subject when we’re talking about humans. A peacock, of course, does not intend to grow a beautiful tail to attract a mate; it simply happens without him thinking about it. In humans, signals might be