Psychology: Virtue-signalling

[Ella Spell]

There's a Catch 22 created when people can be called out for being self-serving OR for having clearly defined ethics. The people who want to label others as manipulative will be satisfied either way.

 

[Twilight]

“Our conclusion is simply that victim signals are effective tools of social influence and maximally effective when deployed with signals of virtue. We also provide evidence supporting our proposition that for some people these signals can be deployed as a duplicitous tactic to acquire personal benefits they would otherwise not receive. Given the ubiquity of victimhood claims circulating through public discourse by word-of-mouth, news reports, social media, legal cases, and the like, an explanation for the multiple motives that drive people to claim this status has both theoretical and practical relevance.”

My fear is that this will make people doubt the verity of victims' stories. I typically believe people unless I am given a very good reason not to. When inappropriate behavior happens on social media, there's often evidence which proves it.

 

[Ella Spell]

Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Mary Terry]

Quite often the person who perceives virtue signalling does so because they lack their own virtue, or they find it hard to believe virtue exists without being contrived.

Often people recognize virtue signaling as a way for the signaler to appear better than or superior to others. Common areas of signaling include comments by people who constantly stress and promote their food choices, transportation choices, education choices, medical choices, clothing choices, etc. as superior to others. They use virtue signaling to criticize others and to elevate their own sense of self-esteem.

 

[Magna]

Often people recognize virtue signaling as a way for the signaler to appear better than or superior to others. Common areas of signaling include comments by people who constantly stress and promote their food choices, transportation choices, education choices, medical choices, clothing choices, etc. as superior to others. They use virtue signaling to criticize others and to elevate their own sense of self-esteem.

In my own life the two most most prevalent "virtue signaling" has come from religion and environmental causes (which in and of itself is a quasi-religion for many).

I'm assuming that "virtue signaling" may mean different things to different people. Examples of it in my opinion based on experiences I've had in real life are:

> A secular group of random people in an office setting with a customer service area. One of them engages in small talk to the group and says: "Today sure is a beautiful day!" To which some in the group affirm and agree with the innocuous statement. Then the person adds: "I went for a wonderful morning walk today. I felt The Lord's blessing all around me!" <<< Virtue signal. Signaling to other potential Christians in the random group and also sending out "signals" (in their mind) to non-religious as a form of attempted evangelization.

>Or something a bit more overt. Also in an office setting at a county government job I had more than 20 years ago a religious coworker handed out a single rose to each person at the department meeting she also attended and proceeded to tell each of her coworkers that they were "children of God" and she hoped for their salvation. She was reprimanded by HR (Human Resources) for that and didn't do it again. Still...virtue signal.

Aside from that, driving a certain kind of car can be a virtue signal, solar panels on a house roof can be a virtue signal, etc.

 

[Ella Spell]

Virtue signalling does indeed exist. ^
I only caution the OP that the existence of signalling doesn't negate the existence of virtue.

 

[All-Rounder]

I remember once this narcissistic bus driver I used to know often pretended to care about people when really she didn't. The more she acted like she cared, the more she'd slag them off behind their backs. I've seen her do it many times, and she also had a habit of lying.
Anyway, one day a lady, possibly in her 70s but wasn't frail or anything, got on the bus and said she had fallen over on her way to the bus stop. She had nothing more than a bruise on her knee and didn't want any fuss, but the driver fussed way too much, pulled into a bay, and phoned for an ambulance. But, being so I had sussed her out by then, I knew this was an act to tell everyone "hey, look how wonderful I am, I'm phoning an ambulance for this elderly lady". The lady looked embarrassed, but obviously was grateful, but she didn't even need an ambulance, despite her age. It wasn't like she was laying on the sidewalk unable to stand or was hemorrhaging or had any fractures or was frightened or anything. I think the bus driver was just wasting everyone's time by pretending to be "really, really nice".
I've helped people in the street before, but only because I care and I try to treat others how I like to be treated. But constantly trying to be too overcaring can be annoying and freaky. Some people don't want fuss, especially if they seem OK.

Having a saviour complex maybe? Or helicopter mothers like my psych said mom is.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hero syndrome,[1] is a psychological disorder and the need to help someone, also a term used by the media to describe the behavior of a person seeking heroism or recognition, usually by creating a harmful situation to objects or persons which they then can resolve.[2] This can include unlawful acts, such as arson. The term has been used to describe behavior of public servants, such as firefighters, nurses, police officers, security guards and politicians.[3] Reasons for this kind of behavior often vary.
In a federal study of more than 80 firefighter arsonists, the most common reason cited for starting the fire was simply the excitement of putting it out, not to cause harm or exact revenge.[4]

A screening method has been developed, based on the case that those who commit the acts are generally young and are looking for an opportunity to prove or flaunt their bravery. However, there are no formal scientific studies on hero syndrome.

 

[All-Rounder]

Spoiler

 

[Fino]

It seems like a rather massive contrast to say "psychopath, narcissist, or manipulator." "Manipulator" seems so much less drastic and normal to me than the first two.

 

[Jonn]

IMO the lower limit for "narcissistic behavior" is still well above virtue signaling, which is a very common human behavior, and has probably being going on "forever".

It's a moving target though. There's been a huge increase in the "demand for offense" of late, so thresholds for offensive behaviors are falling fast.

Well, once again, we need to be more specific in terms of context.
As I mentioned to PrettyBaby:

It depends on the context.
These days, the term "virtue-signalling" has been corrupted into meaning the former.
It is the former that I have a problem with.

And the former here is the "look at me, look at me" mindset.

There is a hell of a lot of this attitude in Australia, atm, in regard to "The Voice" referendum.
Hence my starting this thread.

It's a moving target though. There's been a huge increase in the "demand for offense" of late, so thresholds for offensive behaviors are falling fast.

If I understand you correctly, yes, there is an unfortunate culture of looking for reasons to complain about ppl.
This is the virtue-signalling problem.

Personally speaking, I see this behaviour as a manifestation of zealots climbing over each other to gain social credit points.
Some ppl are driven to find problems that don't actually exist.
There is an art in misrepresenting what is said to featherbed a personal narrative.

 

[Au Naturel]

But doesn't being a "virtue-signaller" inherently mean a person with a rather narcissistic mindset?
Commonly, "virtue-signalling" is renowned to be a "look at me, look at me" attitude.

Not really. Most virtue signaling shows subordination to a group mindset. I am virtuous, just like everyone else here. The dominant member signals the "virtue," and then the subordinates follow in a kind of ditto-head competition.

Right, left, or not even in the ballpark, there's a need by many to show they are a "truer believer" than the next guy in the clique.

 

[Jonn]

As I've mentioned before, I'm not equipped to deal well with people who are socially razor sharp, including people who are powerful victim/virtue signallers.

I understand that.
With me, psychology has always been a special interest.
I find things like this fascinating.

I have recently discovered the concept of "victim narcissism".
Hence part of the reason for the initial research on the subject culminating in the creation of this thread.

It's a difficult form of argument for the most capable debater to tackle - because any questioning of the signalled virtue is portrayed as an attack on the victimhood or at least ignorance.

I understand what you are saying.
I prefer to approach the subject matter through a clinical/scientific lens.
As I said, psychology is a special interest of mine.

Emotional DARVO strikes the fear of god into me, especially when the accusation is a weak spot in an autist's capabilities, e.g. when they insinuate you've committed a massive faux pas that is scandalously offensive and triggering.

What I find "interesting" is how some autistics ignore the limitations of other autistic ppl.
They expect autistics with a social disability to perform perfectly in social situations.
No empathy...
Pure judgment...
I find it more than a little ironic.

That's just an absolute cluster bomb for someone who struggles to understand social interaction, it rips away any sort of scaffolding, spins you like a top and leaves you staggering in the dark.

Most ppl on the spectrum would have experienced this, surely.
Many autistic inferiority complexes are created in this way, IMO, myself included when I was young.

 

[Jonn]

That said I think that there are many people who actually have disadvantage and are actually trying to do good things who get waved away with the "virtue signaller" label.

There are ways and there are ways...
A person who is behaving in a self-righteous "fire and brimstone" manner is someone I would be suspicious of.
To me, a virtuous person is someone who avoids self-serving attention-seeking.

 

[Jonn]

I remember once this narcissistic bus driver I used to know often pretended to care about people when really she didn't.

Probably a good example of virtue-signalling, here.

 

[Jonn]

I dont do virtue signaling
because i find it difficult to be manipulative
Im just me

I can be manipulative if I choose to be.
The problem is, that damned "integrity" thing gets in the way.

 

[Au Naturel]

Offhand, I'd say the "science" in the article quoted in the OP isn't science. It is an op-ed that has lots of citations. (Pretty typical of most sociology.) The whole concept of a "Dark Triad" of personality traits reeks of subjectivity and "pop" psychology. A scientist ought not to use such an emotionally loaded term.

Psychopathy isn't recognized as a specific disorder in the DSM-V and has no objective definition. Instead, there is AntiSocial Personality Disorder, which is one of the 4 "Cluster B" disorders: antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorder.

Machiavellianism isn't a personality disorder and is not always a bad thing. Extreme Machiavellianism would be part of a Cluster B disorder, not a separate trait.

Most people don't understand what Machiavelli was saying anyhow.

At least narcissism can be carried to the point of being narcissistic personality disorder. However, some narcissism is good for you. A complete lack of it is itself a personality problem.

 

[Jonn]

Offhand, I'd say the "science" in the article quoted in the OP isn't science. It is an op-ed that has lots of citations. (Pretty typical of most sociology.)

It was an interesting start to an investigation.

The whole concept of a "Dark Triad" of personality traits reeks of subjectivity and "pop" psychology. A scientist ought not to use such an emotionally loaded term.

Emotionalism is a red flag when it happens, yes.
"Objectivity" is the path to enlightenment rather than it being self-serving...
Unless you are studying the use of emotive terminology.

Please keep in mind, having a skeptical mindset is always advisable.
Ppl who blindly believe things they see/hear are uncomfortably naive and are perfect targets for manipulation.
Maintaining a critical thinking mindset, rather than a personal narrative, pays dividends.

Psychopathy isn't recognized as a specific disorder in the DSM-V and has no objective definition.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean the term can't convey meaning.

For example:
A psychopath can be the representation of a person with antisocial personality disorder who abuses others purposely.
That is how I use it.

Someone with ASPD is not necessarily toxic to other ppl.
But without a functioning conscience, reason would suggest transgression would be easier.

Other research I have engaged in has uncovered that the environment is very important in the metamorphosis from being someone with ASPD to the colloquial "psychopath".

At least narcissism can be carried to the point of being narcissistic personality disorder. However, some narcissism is good for you. A complete lack of it is itself a personality problem.

That is your opinion, yes.

Research suggests that most ppl have elements of narcissism from time to time.
"Nature of the beast."

 

[Knower of nothing]

Spoiler

Superb channel all around.

 

[Mary Terry]

Classic examples of virtue signaling pop up often in the comments to the New York Times food/cooking section. The newspaper is world-renowned for the recipes it develops and publishes. Almost invariably, every time a recipe for a meat dish is published, the comments section is filled with hostile vegan and vegetarians' virtue signaling.

There is a large category of vegan and vegetarian recipes in the NYT but one almost never sees meat-eaters attacking the vegan and vegetarians in the comments section for eschewing meat.

These are recipes, for heaven's sake. If someone doesn't like the ingredients, then don't make the recipe.

 

[Jonn]

There is a large category of vegan and vegetarian recipes in the NYT but one almost never sees meat-eaters attacking the vegan and vegetarians in the comments section for eschewing meat.

This "template" of behaviour is common in some sections of society.
"Emotionalism" is a typical element.