Thoughts on status signals

One thing you've left out of the analysis is the cost of the signal. An ivy league degree may or may not be mostly signal, but either way, very few low status people will be able to get one.

So, one way that signals can lose their meaning is if the cost drops. Take the example of buying a drink. If drinks are expensive, then buying drinks for women you don't know is a costly signal. (Note that there's an equilibrium here; the more successful the tactic becomes, the less costly the signal becomes.) As we all become wealthier and the relative price of drinks goes down, the statement being made about disposable income goes away, and it becomes just a ritual.

I would say, then, that the primary driver for a signal to expire is not for it to be common knowledge that it's a signal, but for it to be common knowledge that it's a cheap signal. Knowing which signals to pay attention to reduces to the question of accurately estimating how costly it is.

An interesting property of status signals is that they expire. If everybody knows that everybody knows that a certain behavior has been used as a status signal in the past, it no longer works.

That isn't my observation. The ability to signal status is itself a trait that is often worth going out of one's way to signal. Try, for example, showing up to a job interview in ragged overalls. Everyone knows that wearing a suit is just status signalling but you still need to signal that you know how to signal.

Many signals are quite long lived, and can survive even when people are well and consciously aware of them. Wearing a business suit signals you are serious about business, for example, and a smile signals friendliness.

IAWYC that signals lose their value when they become well known enough to be commonly gamed, but some of your examples have reasons other than signaling behind them. The purpose of buying people drinks is not to signal status; rather, it's to make them feel obliged to reciprocate (by talking to the buyer).

Interesting ideas here. Let's be clear on the two uses of the word "signaling".

Behaviors such as clinging tightly to an in-group belief, or puffing out your chest while flirting, are "signaling" because of the reason for their existence -- other people observed your ancestors doing the behavior, and that affected their own behavior so as to increase your ancestors' gene frequencies.

Some signaling behavior includes conscious thought about the consequences of the behavior, so we can call that "conscious signaling".

Your point is that if A believes B is consciously signaling, A will become less influenced by B because:

1. A knows that B has incentive to exaggerate, so will discount B's claims.

2. If A thinks that B really cares about the impression he makes on A, then A will think B is lower status. (I don't accept the post's larger point that consciously impressing someone is always low status.)

It would be interesting if the claim that "signals expire" were true, but I don't see how it is.

(2) above already explains half of why, on a date, B can't show A his bank statement. The other half has been pointed out by Robin: It violates the social rules in our egalitarian society. If B were a medieval nobleman, he probably could directly show off his wealth.

Interesting ideas here. Let's be clear on the two uses of the word "signaling".

Behaviors such as clinging tightly to an in-group belief, or puffing out your chest while flirting, are "signaling" because of the reason for their existence -- other people observed your ancestors doing the behavior, and that affected their own behavior so as to increase your ancestors' gene frequencies.

Some signaling behavior includes conscious thought about the consequences of the behavior, so we can call that "conscious signaling".

Your point is that if A believes B is consciously signaling, A will become less influenced by B because:

1. A knows that B has incentive to exaggerate, so will discount B's claims.

2. If A thinks that B really cares about the impression he makes on A, then A will think B is lower status. (I don't accept the post's larger point that consciously impressing someone is always low status.)

It would be interesting if the claim that "signals expire" were true, but I don't see how it is.

(2) above already explains half of why, on a date, B can't show A his bank statement. The other half has been pointed out by Robin: It violates the social rules in our egalitarian society. If B were a medieval nobleman, he probably could directly show off his wealth.