I agree with the political point of this post, but want to discuss some of the ideas about signaling, and in particular the idea that signals have to be costly to be credible.
That's either not always true, or if it is, it's only under a broader notion of "cost" than what we usually intend.
The classic case where it is true is where there are two types, wealthy and poor, and everybody would prefer others think they're one type rather than the other (wealthy rather than poor). In that setting, to send a credible signal that you're wealthy rather than poor, you need a signal whose cost is prohibitively expensive for the poor, but not for the wealthy. Saying "I'm wealthy" won't do, because poor people can easily say that. But wearing a Rolex, or driving a Ferrari, will do, because poor people can't afford to send those signals.
But just move a little bit to a setting where not everybody *wants* to be understood as the same type. E.g., we're handing out free ice cream, and the choices are chocolate or vanilla. You're asked which one you want. You say "chocolate". That is a credible signal that you prefer chocolate. Is it a costly signal? In the pre-theoretical, intuitive sense, obviously not. It costs no effort or resources to mouth the word "chocolate". Why does it still work? Because the signal *would* be costly if you were the other type-it would lead to your getting your less preferred flavor. So in the relevant sense for signaling theory, it's a costly signal, in that it's an easier signal for someone who likes chocolate to send than it is for someone who likes vanilla. But in the intuitive sense, it's not a costly signal.
I think lots of boring, regular communication is like this. The signals are not costly, but they're still credible, because not everybody wants to be seen as the same type. If you ask someone where they're from, and they say "New Jersey", that's credible, because if they weren't from New Jersey, they probably wouldn't want you to think they were. It's only in the special case where everybody wants to be seen as the same type that you need signals to be costly in the traditional sense.
What's the relevance to politics/your post? I don't think there's any obvious tendency for olive branches to become less credible/costly over time, so long as you have a bunch of people who want to be seen as partisan warriors/don't want to be seen as cooperators. The idea that you'd need a signal "costlier" than olive branches only holds if even non-cooperators want people to think they're cooperators. And (sadly!) I don't think that's where we are. Though I admit it would be nice if we got there.
Thank for the comment Daniel, these are some great points. I certainly take your point that not every signal needs to be costly (in some narrow sense) to be credible. It’s also a good point that what matters is that “everybody wants to be the same type”, at least as it pertains to whether signals need to be costly to be credible. I’ll take that into account when I use this theory more in the future.
Sadly, I think you’re right that there are a lot of folks (I linked AOC in the article, not sure if you saw the video) who don’t really care if the other side view them as a cooperator. I suppose my point about needing to send “costlier” signals than olive branches will only become true if these start to become popular (my hope). But at present, it does seem like not everyone wants to be seen as a cooperator.
Just to clarify: would you say my point goes through but not because signals generally must be costly to be credible? It’s just that these olive branches happen to be a costly signal?
Yeah that sounds right. I mean in this case, I think the fact that it is costly-- that she's clearly burning bridges--is certainly relevant to how we should think about what's going on. I just don't think that signals *must* be costly (intuitively) to be credible.
I agree w/the overall point about signals and how they're often not costly, and think it's an important one. But I think -- cynically, perhaps -- that politics is one of the those domains where much of the time, the signal is the substance. Partisan politics is often about performing antagonism towards the other side; MTG and AOC have both based entire careers on it. So even though it may not actually mean anything in terms of policy, MTG's suddenly being conciliatory is in fact an act of "doing politics". As is AOC's repudiation of the sincerity of it. And I'd say the former is costly bc it's a change of course, while the latter is not bc it's business as usual.
Great piece, Kyle. As you note, saying a good word about MTG doesn't amount to forgetting/excusing past vitriolic behavior.
I'm not sure I necessarily believe her statement about regret (internal states are unobservable), but her opinion change about the president seems genuine and works as an occasional reminder that some people supported Trump because policy promises he made (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X241295688).
A fashionable and comforting story is that people fell into a personality cult. Stories like MTG ending her loyal soldier posture suggest that people pay attention to substance too.
Thanks Jan and thanks for the study too, that’s super helpful. I can see why you might doubt her statement of regret, but I guess I thought many of those statements made her more credible. My hope is that MTG acts like a surprising validator for a lot of folks.
I get your point, and I agree that what she did was better than nothing. That said, I think you’re giving her too much credit. For most of her time in power she wasn’t just participating in bad faith MAGA politics, she was one of its clearest embodiments. Then, within weeks of saying the first genuinely sane and self aware things most people have ever heard from her, she announced her retirement.
If this pattern were sustained while she remained in power, I’d be more persuaded by the signaling argument. As it stands, it feels more like a low cost exit once the incentives changed.
I see what you’re saying, but she could’ve just said nothing if she was planning on retiring. I do agree that it would have been better if she had remained and challenged Trump but it’s possible that she did genuinely get fatigued by this environment. She and her son got death threats too…
I’m hoping she inspires more Republicans to push back against this government.
Let’s not forget that even though MTG didn’t particularly support the Affordable Care Act, she has repeatedly denounced that not having a viable replacement and therefore causing health insurance premiums to double, will crush families and businesses.
I agree with the political point of this post, but want to discuss some of the ideas about signaling, and in particular the idea that signals have to be costly to be credible.
That's either not always true, or if it is, it's only under a broader notion of "cost" than what we usually intend.
The classic case where it is true is where there are two types, wealthy and poor, and everybody would prefer others think they're one type rather than the other (wealthy rather than poor). In that setting, to send a credible signal that you're wealthy rather than poor, you need a signal whose cost is prohibitively expensive for the poor, but not for the wealthy. Saying "I'm wealthy" won't do, because poor people can easily say that. But wearing a Rolex, or driving a Ferrari, will do, because poor people can't afford to send those signals.
But just move a little bit to a setting where not everybody *wants* to be understood as the same type. E.g., we're handing out free ice cream, and the choices are chocolate or vanilla. You're asked which one you want. You say "chocolate". That is a credible signal that you prefer chocolate. Is it a costly signal? In the pre-theoretical, intuitive sense, obviously not. It costs no effort or resources to mouth the word "chocolate". Why does it still work? Because the signal *would* be costly if you were the other type-it would lead to your getting your less preferred flavor. So in the relevant sense for signaling theory, it's a costly signal, in that it's an easier signal for someone who likes chocolate to send than it is for someone who likes vanilla. But in the intuitive sense, it's not a costly signal.
I think lots of boring, regular communication is like this. The signals are not costly, but they're still credible, because not everybody wants to be seen as the same type. If you ask someone where they're from, and they say "New Jersey", that's credible, because if they weren't from New Jersey, they probably wouldn't want you to think they were. It's only in the special case where everybody wants to be seen as the same type that you need signals to be costly in the traditional sense.
What's the relevance to politics/your post? I don't think there's any obvious tendency for olive branches to become less credible/costly over time, so long as you have a bunch of people who want to be seen as partisan warriors/don't want to be seen as cooperators. The idea that you'd need a signal "costlier" than olive branches only holds if even non-cooperators want people to think they're cooperators. And (sadly!) I don't think that's where we are. Though I admit it would be nice if we got there.
Thank for the comment Daniel, these are some great points. I certainly take your point that not every signal needs to be costly (in some narrow sense) to be credible. It’s also a good point that what matters is that “everybody wants to be the same type”, at least as it pertains to whether signals need to be costly to be credible. I’ll take that into account when I use this theory more in the future.
Sadly, I think you’re right that there are a lot of folks (I linked AOC in the article, not sure if you saw the video) who don’t really care if the other side view them as a cooperator. I suppose my point about needing to send “costlier” signals than olive branches will only become true if these start to become popular (my hope). But at present, it does seem like not everyone wants to be seen as a cooperator.
Just to clarify: would you say my point goes through but not because signals generally must be costly to be credible? It’s just that these olive branches happen to be a costly signal?
Yeah that sounds right. I mean in this case, I think the fact that it is costly-- that she's clearly burning bridges--is certainly relevant to how we should think about what's going on. I just don't think that signals *must* be costly (intuitively) to be credible.
I agree w/the overall point about signals and how they're often not costly, and think it's an important one. But I think -- cynically, perhaps -- that politics is one of the those domains where much of the time, the signal is the substance. Partisan politics is often about performing antagonism towards the other side; MTG and AOC have both based entire careers on it. So even though it may not actually mean anything in terms of policy, MTG's suddenly being conciliatory is in fact an act of "doing politics". As is AOC's repudiation of the sincerity of it. And I'd say the former is costly bc it's a change of course, while the latter is not bc it's business as usual.
Great piece, Kyle. As you note, saying a good word about MTG doesn't amount to forgetting/excusing past vitriolic behavior.
I'm not sure I necessarily believe her statement about regret (internal states are unobservable), but her opinion change about the president seems genuine and works as an occasional reminder that some people supported Trump because policy promises he made (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X241295688).
A fashionable and comforting story is that people fell into a personality cult. Stories like MTG ending her loyal soldier posture suggest that people pay attention to substance too.
Thanks Jan and thanks for the study too, that’s super helpful. I can see why you might doubt her statement of regret, but I guess I thought many of those statements made her more credible. My hope is that MTG acts like a surprising validator for a lot of folks.
I get your point, and I agree that what she did was better than nothing. That said, I think you’re giving her too much credit. For most of her time in power she wasn’t just participating in bad faith MAGA politics, she was one of its clearest embodiments. Then, within weeks of saying the first genuinely sane and self aware things most people have ever heard from her, she announced her retirement.
If this pattern were sustained while she remained in power, I’d be more persuaded by the signaling argument. As it stands, it feels more like a low cost exit once the incentives changed.
I see what you’re saying, but she could’ve just said nothing if she was planning on retiring. I do agree that it would have been better if she had remained and challenged Trump but it’s possible that she did genuinely get fatigued by this environment. She and her son got death threats too…
I’m hoping she inspires more Republicans to push back against this government.
Let’s not forget that even though MTG didn’t particularly support the Affordable Care Act, she has repeatedly denounced that not having a viable replacement and therefore causing health insurance premiums to double, will crush families and businesses.
Good point. Even more of a reason to extend an olive branch.