Talk:Virtue signalling

NPOV

Richard L. Peterson You added the POV template and I'm a bit confused so I have removed it, but if you disagree, feel free to re-add it. You've used the reasoning "seems to be rightwing attempt to confuse people into waiting until they are perfect before doing anything nice" which I don't quite understand as virtue signalling is defined as being projecting inauthentic moral values, which is what the article describes. —Panamitsu (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't understand the note, as it seems to describe the use of the term as a pejorative neologism; which is what it is and what we describe. If there is a non-pejorative thing also known as Virtue Signalling carrying more weight we need sources, not a POV tag. Koncorde (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The version of this on June 11 2021 is an example of a much more npov article than today's article. It doesn't even need to be defined right off the bat as pejorative, since it's going by a dictionary. If you look at that day's revision, you will probably see what I mean about the npov tag I put up, except for where my suspicions of the rightwing come from.Rich (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That one doesn't reflect the weight of reliable sources however. Very much like Social Justice Warrior whatever positive or at least slightly warm neutrality has been overtaken by the pejorative usage. Trying to use the terms outside of the current perception in those same positive overtones requires explaining "no, not like that". Not sure how you would define the word, AND not mention its pejorative nature. Most dictionaries will bracket it as "Derogatory" or equivalent to the same end. Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over flimsy source in lead

This is regarding this edit, which I reverted and Nerd271 restored.

Regnery Publishing is a poor-quality source for scientific claims, and Gad Saad is a marketing professor and fringe youtuber. This absolutely doesn't belong in the lead, and it doesn't belong in the article at all without context and attribution, as in "according to marketing professor Sad Gaad..."

The burden is on Nerd271 to gain consensus for this content. Many of the issues involved with selectively summarizing poor-quality pop-sci sources to make overly broad claims have already been explained to this editor in the past. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree in general, except without context and attribution - don't see why it would carry any WP:WEIGHT. Also per my edit summary it's sort of unclear what that line is doing in the context of this article's subject. I haven't looked into this topic in depth, but I could imagine an article about the behavior with a subsection on the pejorative, but for now the first sentence makes clear this is just about the latter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The concept overlaps with many existing articles, which complicates things. The term is so loaded that I don't think this article would be the place to neutrally discuss it. Maybe performative activism is better for that. We also have slacktivism and social justice warrior to document the pejorative connotations, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Would agree with both. Any discussion of its psychology should be in the context of the article about Signalling theory first. If it's sufficiently WP:DUE in that article it's probably due in other articles ONCE it is demonstrated to be a position of actual weight, rather than random speculation from a single source. Koncorde (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense to dismiss people who disagree with you as "fringe" juts because they have a different opinion. Gad Saad is an evolutionary psychologist and a marketing researcher. We have a page for him.

@Grayfell: You should keep our other disputes confined to those respective pages.

@Koncorde: If you could scroll to the See also section, we have another take by a different evolutionary psychologist, Geoffrey Miller. Nerd271 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "See Also" have to do with the opening line of an article? The whole point of the opening line is it summarises the important content. Can you point at the section in the article that focuses on Signalling with reliable sources? Koncorde (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Koncorde: They both address the topic directly. That's why Geoffrey Miller's (essay in his) book is listed. Gad Saad explains what it is in the context of psychology. The introduction not only summarizes the article but also defines the topic. Nerd271 (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you have misunderstood. The question is where in the Virtue Signalling article on wikipedia is the information about "Signalling" mentioned (i.e. which current sources are currently in use), that you are inserting in the lead. If you are inserting content into the lead that is not in the article then this is cart before horse. Koncorde (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this one kind of signalling? Low-cost signalling, in this case, as opposed to, say, conspicuous consumption, which is high-cost. Nerd271 (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That isn't answering the question. If Virtue Signalling has been directly discussed by authorititve sources then it should be added to the article body. If the research is significant enough it may then be summarised in the lead. You are trying to add a source to the lead without demonstrating that link. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered. And the link is obvious. That's why the word "signalling" is used. It is not just a common (and pejorative) term but also a technical term in the sense of psychology. Nerd271 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever question you think you are answering: you haven't. Koncorde (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Why do you keep asking questions to which you don't want to hear the answers? Nerd271 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered the basic question for me to even judge what it is you think I don't want to hear. I don't care whether or not Virtue Signalling is or isn't linked to the psychological concept of signalling: I have asked where in the wikipedia article is it current discussed for it to be summarised in the lead. That I can't work out what question you think you are answering should be a red flag that you are not being clear at all. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In the previous version which you and other people reverted, the first sentence explains the common (and pejorative) use. The sentence I added explains the technical use of the word "signalling." That's it. The page for signalling cannot possibly list all examples, and this is only one low-cost example. This phenomenon is only relatively named, but as a strategy, it is likely to have been around since time immemorial. Geoffrey Miller explained this in a YouTube video. (I have misgivings about using a YouTube video as a source.) I have explained myself on multiple occasions now. The connection is obvious. It is not without good reason that the word "signalling" is used in this context, again in the scientific sense. Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Back around to the beginning. Where in the article Virtue Signalling is the term Signalling defined as originating with the psychological term, by who, and specifically where in the current Virtue Signalling article is this done? If the answer is: it doesn't. Then it doesn't matter what you think is "obvious" - the link needs to be expressed by a reliable source. Then, if it considered to have due weight it may be summarised in the lead if it helps convey meaning. At present "low cost means of signalling" for example is incomprehensible gibberish because at no point is "low cost" or "signalling" explained from a "psychological" point of view - and if it were to be explained it would not be in the lead. This is blatant cart before horse. Koncorde (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, the introduction does not only summarize the article but also defines the topic being discussed, paving the way for the subsequent sections. Moreover, I think you underestimate the reading comprehension and curiosity of our readers. Even in technical discussions, certain words or phrases like "low-cost means of signalling" can carry their ordinary meanings. I did not want to write "cheap" because it has a negative connotation and this is an already contentious topic. "Low-cost" sounds a bit more professional, I think.

I disagree that this is a "blatant cart before [the] horse." The sentence you removed follows neatly from the first. The first sentence explains what "virtue signalling" means on the common parlance. The next explains what it means in psychology. That's it. Perhaps the two could be swapped? Nerd271 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Defining a topic with verbiage that is then never mentioned again isn't defining the topic. Reversing sentences isn't going to solve the issue that subject matter has been introduced that does not provide clarity.

That is all without getting into whether the Book in question actually discusses or references Virtue Signalling to any extent that this wouldn't count as WP:OR. Reading the book, I'm not seeing what is particularly relevant to this topic at all. Koncorde (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me, just like Saad's explanation. Unless the article is long, and this one isn't, not everything has to be repeated. Again, our readers aren't idiots.

You have read the whole book? I doubt you could in such a short amount of time. The page number is given. No, it is not "original research" in the sense that yours truly did it. Nerd271 (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been discussions over connecting this topic to signalling theory in the past. I don't think the sources are good enough to make the connection; and this source (a low-quality book from someone with no relevant expertise, published by a WP:BIASED non-academic press focused on waging culture wars) is certainly not enough to change my mind. Regnery Publishing, in particular, is essentially a factional vanity press; publication there confers no weight or reliability. If the only source you can find is something published there and written by someone with no relevant expertise, then it reads to me like an attempt by a conservative publisher and author to give the term an academic-sounding gloss by making an arbitrary connection to an unrelated scientific concept; if they were right about the connection, and the connection they were trying to make more broadly supported, then you would be able to find better sources discussing it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Calling an evolutionary psychologist having "no relevant expertise" in a topic in psychology is a rather odd take. I incidentally came across that explanation by Saad, so I decided to include it in. I don't believe in gate-keeping publishers anymore than my public librarians do. (We have multiple copies in circulation.) This sounds like obstructionism by pedantry to me. Nerd271 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reading the copy of the book I there must something is dramatically different with your version, page 178 appears to be midway through a list of Foreign Terrorist Organisations. Page 190 is a chapter on "Do Not Virtue-Signal" so I will assume this is where the relevance should start. In it he passingly references borrowing "some fundamental principles from evolutionary biology" then goes on to describe some stuff he says are broadly analogous (though in reality he just kind of describes animal behaviour and waves his hands a bit). This is far from any assertion of authority. The chapter instead pretty much just repeats and emphasises the pejorative sense we already have (in his personal opinion). About the only novelty to the description is his use of the phrase "cheap and costless self aggrandizing" without actually linking "cheap" and "costless" to the evolutionary biological sense, which is only then brought up to emphasise the difference between virtue signalling and actual virtue being signalled (where cost is defined as, boardly, risking your life, vs just having a bigger tail). At best, this would be a throwaway line as a commentary - but it certainly isn't some critical leadworthy definition. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• He is not an evolutionary psychologist; his degree is in marketing. Simply talking about something a lot does not make him enough of an expert to pass WP:SELFPUB. And you may personally believe that where a book is published doesn't matter, but as far as policy goes WP:RS is clear that it does; a publisher that publishes things indiscriminately, as Regnery Publishing does, lends no reliability to things published there. --Aquillion (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

So what should his description be on his wili article then? Because this doesn't match anything else. But then nor did "Psychologist" before it. Koncorde (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The blurb on his Psychology Today column (which has not been updated since 2020) describes him as a "professor of marketing". Based on sources from that article, Saad no longer holds "the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption". A cursory search suggests that the chair no longer exists. Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition in lead

Thread retitled from "lead not aligned with definition".

The lead is not aligned with the article, including the definition. The lead uses several phrases "pejorative" "the idea that", "neologism", which seems to suggest virtue signalling is imagined on the side of the personal labelling a practice as virtue signalling.

This is not aligned with the definition or the article, which seems to consider it a legitimate concept. Bquast (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Pejorative" means it is used to express contempt or disapproval of a behaviour (it is). "Neologism" means the term is a recent creation (it is). "The idea that" is covered by the rest of the article which isn't just dependent upon the Dictionary Definition, which still (in any case) describes "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them". The implication is clear that it is saying the behaviour is done for the benefit of one person in the eyes of another, and the corollary of that is the accusation of the behaviour being disingenuous.

Do you have a specific alternative wording suggestion or can clarify what you would like to change? Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead was twice changed in a way that completely changes the definition from dealing with allegations of disingenuousness to being disingenuous. That's not quite the subject, though. The way it's most often used implies an allegation of disingenuousness. Trying to take into account that there are some uses which are just "signalling good character", I took a pass at the lead to include both. I'm a little uneasy with including that part, though, because we already have an article dealing with signalling good character (whether genuine or not) at impression management. The sources that define virtue signalling as, basically, impression management, are thus less relevant to this article than the sources that deal with the version of this subject that is distinct from impression management, which is effectively a judgment of impression management (or, of course, a bad faith allegation from those whose morality has been questioned that those expressing the "high ground" are fakes). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

“Idiot” means “stupid person”, not “person alleged to be stupid” or “the idea that a person is stupid”. Any inaccuracy is due to context, not the meaning of the word. It’s the same thing here. MSMST1543 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have a typical use–mention problem here. On the one hand there is the literal definition of the term, while on the other hand there is the term itself (i.e. the topic of the article), which is generally described as pejorative and as an accusation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)