I think your reasoning only works if the fraction of people who use impressive signalling is sufficiently small. If most people use it everybody starts to price it in. Then if you apply for a job at skill level X you have to show impressiveness at skill level X+N—otherwise you won’t get it. Correspondingly on the dating market. You can still try honest signalling but your chances will go down. It only works if you can reliably detect honest signallers.
Then if you apply for a job at skill level X you have to show impressiveness at skill level X+N—otherwise you won’t get it.
Well there are jobs out there that you’d be able to get via honest signaling, right? For example, suppose your skill level is a 5⁄10 and there is a job that is supposedly for a skill level of 3⁄10, but like you’re saying, to outcompete the 3⁄10 candidates you need to do better, so in reality it will be a 5⁄10 type of person who gets the job. But then if this X+N thing is true, honest signaling would lead you to a job that you are underqualified (and underpaid) for. I think that is probably something that happens a lot in job markets.
However, I don’t think it is always that simple. For example, someone who really, really wants to work somewhere that embraces asynchronous. It might make sense for them to lean towards honesty there. And more broadly, this is what I was really trying to get at in the post. That it depends on the situation and honest vs impressive signaling might be something you’d want to add to your list of things to consider. “Do I want to focus on honest signaling or impressive signaling here? What are the tradeoffs?”
I agree that it is rarely that simple. A smart person will always find edge cases to make use of. Like detecting the other honest signalers on Tinder via their profiles in the OP.
I think your reasoning only works if the fraction of people who use impressive signalling is sufficiently small. If most people use it everybody starts to price it in. Then if you apply for a job at skill level X you have to show impressiveness at skill level X+N—otherwise you won’t get it. Correspondingly on the dating market. You can still try honest signalling but your chances will go down. It only works if you can reliably detect honest signallers.
See also The Evolution of Trust.
Well there are jobs out there that you’d be able to get via honest signaling, right? For example, suppose your skill level is a 5⁄10 and there is a job that is supposedly for a skill level of 3⁄10, but like you’re saying, to outcompete the 3⁄10 candidates you need to do better, so in reality it will be a 5⁄10 type of person who gets the job. But then if this X+N thing is true, honest signaling would lead you to a job that you are underqualified (and underpaid) for. I think that is probably something that happens a lot in job markets.
However, I don’t think it is always that simple. For example, someone who really, really wants to work somewhere that embraces asynchronous. It might make sense for them to lean towards honesty there. And more broadly, this is what I was really trying to get at in the post. That it depends on the situation and honest vs impressive signaling might be something you’d want to add to your list of things to consider. “Do I want to focus on honest signaling or impressive signaling here? What are the tradeoffs?”
I agree that it is rarely that simple. A smart person will always find edge cases to make use of. Like detecting the other honest signalers on Tinder via their profiles in the OP.