How candidates can signal sincerity in an era of cynicism
tessexperiments.org
tessexperiments.org
(hosting at the Open Science Framework, "a free, open platform to support your research and enable collaboration")
Now that we know sincerity can be signaled, candidates can now cynically practice being the most sincere.
They consider two interventions: (1) taking an extreme position to signal legitimacy, (2) speaking in moral language.
They found (2) effective, (1) ineffective.
“The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you’ve got it made.” --Jean Giradoux, though variants predate his usage (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/12/05/fake-honesty/)
Why work for actual success when you can fake it? Etc. Yes. Virtue signaling is a debasement of the currency.
Well, as it turns out, Girards entire oeuvre can be said to be advocating for that ineffective strategy of adopting extreme positions.. (eg if you think that dying on the cross was very ineffective for J. Christ)
the hypernormally stimulated bribe?
Baudrillard would, I think, follow McLuhan in blaming technology and pataphysics (e.g. the 'physics' of fiction) as opposed to "this is a conscious conspiracy to control people". A middle ground is that if CBS didn't do it, NBC would.
There's a mile of difference between creating an attractive nuisance, a "Trap" to borrow from Adam Curtis, and failing to account for negative side effects. We're still very much in the era of apologetics and rationalisation with regard to knowingly creating controlling, addictive and deleterious technologies. There is a kind of tragic death drive or celebration of Thanatos/atrophy going on there. I actually think the modern word that best captures it is "convenience". (it must be pronounced with a sigh of resignation). :)
It feels like it's implying that sincere is the opposite of cynical? But someone (me) could be sincerely cynical. Or falsely optimistic.
In any case, signaling sincerity sounds a bit like fighting for peace, and doesn't give me high hopes for this article whenever we do get to find out what it says.
(It _is_ sort of fun to have this playground though, where we can all just freely admit we didn't read the article, and riff off the title alone)
So if you are sincerely cynical, how would people tell you that they are being sincere (when your assumption is that they are not)?
No idea, since I can't read TFA either.
How Candidates Can Signal Sincerity in an Era of Cynicism
---------------------------------------------------------
[[Download data and study materials from OSF]](https://osf.io/rj3aw/)
Principal investigators:
Scott Clifford
University of Houston
*Email:* scliffor\@central.uh.edu
*Homepage:* <https://scottaclifford.com/>
Elizabeth Simas
University of Houston
*Email:* ensimas\@uh.edu
*Homepage:* <https://www.elizabethsimas.com/>
\
*Sample size:* 769
*Field period:* 01/03/2020-06/26/2020
Abstract
Partisan polarization has reached historical highs, while politicians' credibility has reached historical lows. For example, recent polls suggest that as few as 8% of Americans think that politicians believe most of the stances that they take on issues. This extreme level of cynicism threatens to break a fundamental link in representation. If candidates cannot credibly convey their positions, then voters cannot evaluate them on policy. Yet, we know little about the strategies politicians might take to convey the credibility of their claims. In this paper, we investigate whether politicians can signal credibility by taking extreme positions or by justifying their stances in moral terms. Across three experiments, we show that moral justifications tend to enhance credibility, while extreme positions do not. In a fourth study, we show that while extreme stances increase polarization in candidate ratings, moral justifications do not. Taken together, our findings suggest that moral justifications are a useful strategy to enhance credibility without contributing to rising levels of polarization.
Hypotheses
- H1: Candidates taking extreme issue positions will be perceived as more sincere.
- H2: Issue stances justified with moral language will be perceived as more sincere.
Experimental Manipulations
A within-subjects vignette experiment. Respondents will be asked to evaluate three hypothetical politicians, each taking a stance on a particular issue. Within each candidate profile, the stance will be randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2x2 design. The stance will be either extreme or moderate and moral or pragmatic.
Outcomes
An index of the following questions:
- Do you think this candidate truly believes in {stance}, or is just saying what some people want to hear?
- In your opinion, how committed do you think this candidate is to {stance}?
- In your opinion, how likely is it that this candidate will be a leader on {stance}?
- In your opinion, how likely do you think it is that this candidate will flip-flop on {stance} in the future?
Summary of Results
As expected, the moral justification is perceived as significantly more credible than the pragmatic justification (b = .02, p = .002). The extreme position, on the other hand, is seen as slightly, but not significantly less credible than the more moderate position (b = -.007, p = .295). Thus, consistent with Study 1, moral justifications increase credibility, but extreme positions do not. Additionally, we find no evidence of an interaction between the treatments.
References
Paper presented at the the 2019 Texas American Politics Symposium (TAPS).
People who undergo this procedure will be guaranteed trustworthy.
They will be given a mark. A forehead-tattoo.
Certain roles in our society - certain jobs and offices - will be available only to those with this mark.
I would vote for a person with this mark.
Consider also that not being able to lie is absolutely not the same thing as being trustworthy. If we've learned anything the last two years, it's that people can deeply believe some shocking things.
And what's so subhuman about it? It might be quite freeing and desirable. No more enbeastifying than military indoctrination.
And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit. That is a highly desirable flavor of trustworthiness.
But yes, trusted to be a member of your particular ideological tribe would involve a completely different program and forehead tattoo, of course.
Could these public servants be become a tool for a more powerful political entity? Perhaps truth is more subjective than we hoped, or perhaps they have been conditioned with a failsafe - to keep them from speaking certain truths.
Could these public servants decide they don't like the life they've been given? They are humans, not mere tools.
Of course not. The procedure would also induce omniscience
/s
I can think of a dozen horrible things that are popularly embraced with both hands. And you guys don't even blink.
My idea, otoh, might be awesome.
Leaving aside that being unable to lie has nothing to do with knowing the truth, that poor wretch would be the most unelectable creature in existence. The voters do not want to hear that "we don't know what the right answer yet", "this solution is the right path in the long run but will cause poverty and suffering today", and other unpalatable truths that are largely unavoidable as part of governing a population.
Stephen R Donaldson also touches the subject a little in his gap stuff.
Of course these days we'd probably mark them with an RFID chip. Just beneath the back of the skull, in the spine, right next to the microbomb.
(Keep getting that god damn you're posting too fast bullshit. Thank Hacker News for protecting you from bad thoughts)
(Expand your scifi literacy)
Politicians that can't lie are objectively better than ones that can. That makes them superhuman, in this case.
1. Society already does this; most morality systems discourage lying (with exceptions of course).
2. Could your lobotomized person understand lying? If not, they won't be effective at governing the rest of us lairs. If so, the "lair/truth-teller" logic puzzle applies: they could truthfully report what a liar would say, thereby truthfully lying.
> They will be given a mark. A forehead-tattoo
Does sarcasm count as lying? Does fiction?
The program would have to address the root of the behavior we're filtering for, of course. intent to maliciously deceive or somesuch.
I recall one scifi where they had a priesthoodesque dealy called "witnesses". Similar idea. Trained for perfect recall and honesty. Wore robes.
Were you recalling the Fair Witnesses from Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land? (Overly Sarcastic synopsis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAkplrZci0)
Those industries aren’t even top 10: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-biggest-industries-world-2...