That was pretty rude, and there was probably a better way to say that. Makes me kind of angry at you. Anyway, people are a lot more responsive to criticism if you don't frame it as "you a terrible person".
Some possible reasons:They enjoyed the workThey wanted the money nowThey wanted to smooth out the market work they did over time, rather than push it all into post-graduationThey didn't expect much better job opportunities after graduationThey couldn't get their foot in the door of the place they wanted to work if they didn't work while studying... Perhaps because they can signal their work on their CV better than they can any extra thinking.
I do think debt aversion is important, though. It's just terribly easy to convince oneself that an extra beer right now is worth five dollars that you will have to earn some time in the future.
I would also emphasize that you are thinking any time you are awake. Unless you are doing something incredibly menial at this hypothetical job, you'll learn a lot of useful things, not the least of which is how to be a productive part of the work force. There's a lot more to it than is on the surface, and to paraphrase some of the other posters, you won't learn it in a classroom or in a philosophy book.
What if a decent portion of the time is spent on reading and non-paid projects related to your field? Surely that could be more useful than working some mindless job making minimum wage? You can cancel out some of this value if your job is mindless enough to allow you to think about your field on work time, but most unless the job is related to your field, the experience is essentially non-existent.
What you don't want to signal is genuinely being self made from unprivileged, even though it is "valued".
In this regard, status signaling and affiliation signaling are in tension. Higher status is to be obtained by signaling that you are self-made; higher affiliation, by proceeding along the lines you indicate.
It isn't clear which kind of signaling the ten supporters of the signaling interpretation have in mind. I confess, I had assumed status signaling, as that's Robin's preoccupation and seems generally the more obnoxious variety--affiliation signaling wouldn't ordinarily draw comment.
Keep in mind that local values themselves may be some sort of signalling. I don't particularly see how signalling the birth-privilege on a blog primarily visited by privileged males could be going against the local values.
In my experience privileged folks love to interpret their status as product of their work and their personal abilities, which is distinct from actually valuing those qualities.
What you want to signal among the privileged folks is that you are another privileged person that is unaware of / denies the privilege. You want to signal that you belong, that you are one of them. What you don't want to signal is genuinely being self made from unprivileged, even though it is "valued".
[T]he very act of signalling something positive seem to be pleasurable, without serving any other purpose.- dmytryl
Apparently many people agree with dmytryl (although they didn't upvote his comment - "market failure"?), since 10 readers upvoted a comment alleging status signaling in the OP.
I think the split of opinion is interesting. It is as though two OB-reader subgroups have a whole different conception of how you diagnose signaling: relative to context or to society-wide values?
What's also interesting is that they are supported by two different views of the construal-level at which signaling occurs. If, as Robin thinks, far-mode serves hypocrisy, signaling is far. And if it's far, at is apt to use universal values. But, I think this only goes to show that signaling is near. We signal using values developed in far-mode to serve other purposes, but we signal (at least primarily) in near-mode.
Why is that? Well, signaling is a commercial activity, and trade is near. Signaling effectiveness often also depends on sequencing, an activity calling forth near-mode. I think this suggests that signaling is very sensitive to context. (Which is also, simply, my empirical conclusion as well.)
What's signaled is far but the act of signaling is near. That's why signaling seems petty and small.
$100 are much more valuable to a college grad who lives on $4,000 per year than they are to an executive that makes $200,000 per year.
It's really about how the person spends those additional $100 they make while they are a college grad.
"Across many periods of time, work is roughly like this. It is the total amount of work you do that matters." No, that's isn't the case. Quality of work is more important than quantity.
I was, in fact, doing groundskeeping for a wage. And it required *some* conscious effort, but not my entire brain. The same was not always true when I was operating the big rider mowers, though. Those suckers were scary. Dishwashing is pretty good for thinking too, as mentioned, except when there's huge rush and the dishes begin to pile up. Some types of construction work are as well, while some types (e.g., anything involving powertools) are definitely not. Janitorial work also.
Sadly, grad school does not leave any time for such activities, so the subway must suffice. And church. I get lots of ideas for experiments while my mind is wandering in church...
Am I going to have to create a dishwashing exception? It would be disingenuous for me to comment, as I find the process so viscerally repugnant that it makes me gag. I suspect you react differently.
Odd thing is that my guess is that dishwashing would be the last thing college students would want to do. The stereotype is fast-food service, which doesn't strike me as compatible with broader cognition.
I think I see the solution to the "paradox": Why does it seem like signaling is pleasurably per se, if (as I contend) it is purposeful for obtaining advantages--most importantly, status and affiliation, which I think (pace Robin?) are distinct.
My thought: Signaling is pleasurable, but it is also costly, mostly in credibility. So, it tends strongly to be directed toward what's "profitable."
"Or am I just making some error?" Most of the menial part time jobs that college students are likely to get are great for letting your mind wander and thinking about the things you've read lately; whereas sitting in your dorm with a book if you get bored your impluse (if you are the average college student) will probably be to grab the video game or phone a friend or check facebook.
Except, how do you "learn how to think"? Even if a child or young adult does not "know how to think", spending more time fumbling around--especially when that's what they want to do--strikes me as reasonably likely to contribute to their getting past that milestone earlier than they otherwise would.
I think you also need aversion to debt to make that work, since borrowing money would accomplish the same thing.
That was pretty rude, and there was probably a better way to say that. Makes me kind of angry at you. Anyway, people are a lot more responsive to criticism if you don't frame it as "you a terrible person".
Some possible reasons:They enjoyed the workThey wanted the money nowThey wanted to smooth out the market work they did over time, rather than push it all into post-graduationThey didn't expect much better job opportunities after graduationThey couldn't get their foot in the door of the place they wanted to work if they didn't work while studying... Perhaps because they can signal their work on their CV better than they can any extra thinking.
I like your overall analysis approach.
I do think debt aversion is important, though. It's just terribly easy to convince oneself that an extra beer right now is worth five dollars that you will have to earn some time in the future.
I would also emphasize that you are thinking any time you are awake. Unless you are doing something incredibly menial at this hypothetical job, you'll learn a lot of useful things, not the least of which is how to be a productive part of the work force. There's a lot more to it than is on the surface, and to paraphrase some of the other posters, you won't learn it in a classroom or in a philosophy book.
What if a decent portion of the time is spent on reading and non-paid projects related to your field? Surely that could be more useful than working some mindless job making minimum wage? You can cancel out some of this value if your job is mindless enough to allow you to think about your field on work time, but most unless the job is related to your field, the experience is essentially non-existent.
What you don't want to signal is genuinely being self made from unprivileged, even though it is "valued".
In this regard, status signaling and affiliation signaling are in tension. Higher status is to be obtained by signaling that you are self-made; higher affiliation, by proceeding along the lines you indicate.
It isn't clear which kind of signaling the ten supporters of the signaling interpretation have in mind. I confess, I had assumed status signaling, as that's Robin's preoccupation and seems generally the more obnoxious variety--affiliation signaling wouldn't ordinarily draw comment.
Keep in mind that local values themselves may be some sort of signalling. I don't particularly see how signalling the birth-privilege on a blog primarily visited by privileged males could be going against the local values.
In my experience privileged folks love to interpret their status as product of their work and their personal abilities, which is distinct from actually valuing those qualities.
What you want to signal among the privileged folks is that you are another privileged person that is unaware of / denies the privilege. You want to signal that you belong, that you are one of them. What you don't want to signal is genuinely being self made from unprivileged, even though it is "valued".
[T]he very act of signalling something positive seem to be pleasurable, without serving any other purpose.- dmytryl
Apparently many people agree with dmytryl (although they didn't upvote his comment - "market failure"?), since 10 readers upvoted a comment alleging status signaling in the OP.
I think the split of opinion is interesting. It is as though two OB-reader subgroups have a whole different conception of how you diagnose signaling: relative to context or to society-wide values?
What's also interesting is that they are supported by two different views of the construal-level at which signaling occurs. If, as Robin thinks, far-mode serves hypocrisy, signaling is far. And if it's far, at is apt to use universal values. But, I think this only goes to show that signaling is near. We signal using values developed in far-mode to serve other purposes, but we signal (at least primarily) in near-mode.
Why is that? Well, signaling is a commercial activity, and trade is near. Signaling effectiveness often also depends on sequencing, an activity calling forth near-mode. I think this suggests that signaling is very sensitive to context. (Which is also, simply, my empirical conclusion as well.)
What's signaled is far but the act of signaling is near. That's why signaling seems petty and small.
$100 are much more valuable to a college grad who lives on $4,000 per year than they are to an executive that makes $200,000 per year.
It's really about how the person spends those additional $100 they make while they are a college grad.
"Across many periods of time, work is roughly like this. It is the total amount of work you do that matters." No, that's isn't the case. Quality of work is more important than quantity.
I was, in fact, doing groundskeeping for a wage. And it required *some* conscious effort, but not my entire brain. The same was not always true when I was operating the big rider mowers, though. Those suckers were scary. Dishwashing is pretty good for thinking too, as mentioned, except when there's huge rush and the dishes begin to pile up. Some types of construction work are as well, while some types (e.g., anything involving powertools) are definitely not. Janitorial work also.
Sadly, grad school does not leave any time for such activities, so the subway must suffice. And church. I get lots of ideas for experiments while my mind is wandering in church...
Am I going to have to create a dishwashing exception? It would be disingenuous for me to comment, as I find the process so viscerally repugnant that it makes me gag. I suspect you react differently.
Odd thing is that my guess is that dishwashing would be the last thing college students would want to do. The stereotype is fast-food service, which doesn't strike me as compatible with broader cognition.
dmytryl:
I think I see the solution to the "paradox": Why does it seem like signaling is pleasurably per se, if (as I contend) it is purposeful for obtaining advantages--most importantly, status and affiliation, which I think (pace Robin?) are distinct.
My thought: Signaling is pleasurable, but it is also costly, mostly in credibility. So, it tends strongly to be directed toward what's "profitable."
Remember to thank her for the disclosure.
I asserted the opposite above, based on my experience washing dishes in the college dorm.
"Or am I just making some error?" Most of the menial part time jobs that college students are likely to get are great for letting your mind wander and thinking about the things you've read lately; whereas sitting in your dorm with a book if you get bored your impluse (if you are the average college student) will probably be to grab the video game or phone a friend or check facebook.
Except, how do you "learn how to think"? Even if a child or young adult does not "know how to think", spending more time fumbling around--especially when that's what they want to do--strikes me as reasonably likely to contribute to their getting past that milestone earlier than they otherwise would.