Two areas that DLAW might function in: motivation/akrasia and morality.
Morality I am less sure on; it might overlap with signalling a lot, but people seem to think that wearing winning (moral) beliefs will give them winning actions. Consequentialism gets it round the right way, then.
Motivation, however, I am sure of. People observe motivated people; they note that all motivated people have a method to achieve stuff that they espouse and use. So naturally, people go out and buy these methods and try to wear them, use them. It fails for them because being motivated causes you to develop and use methods to achieve things; people trying to dress like motivated people don’t get motivated because motivation doesn’t come from the methods. Like you said, the causal link is the wrong way around.
If you think motivation fits your idea and is more down-to-earth, absolutely feel completely free to use it in your post. I would replace the mathematically rational section with a section about motivation; the mathematically rational stuff feels a little bit unlike the other examples.
Your distinction between signalling and DLAW is sound. Your one sentence summary of the consistency section is brilliant. The introduction and the consistency section are particularly excellent.
Basically, you should republish this, even if it means slogging through all the formatting yourself, even if it means submitting it with some formatting errors, and even if it means staying up half the night and leaving on your trip tired. It’s that good.
As for your morality point, I had noticed a similar thing myself and at one point considered adding a section on virtue-ethics to this post, I eventually decided I didn’t have a strong enough case.
You have a good point about motivation, I didn’t think of that.
Two areas that DLAW might function in: motivation/akrasia and morality.
Morality I am less sure on; it might overlap with signalling a lot, but people seem to think that wearing winning (moral) beliefs will give them winning actions. Consequentialism gets it round the right way, then.
Motivation, however, I am sure of. People observe motivated people; they note that all motivated people have a method to achieve stuff that they espouse and use. So naturally, people go out and buy these methods and try to wear them, use them. It fails for them because being motivated causes you to develop and use methods to achieve things; people trying to dress like motivated people don’t get motivated because motivation doesn’t come from the methods. Like you said, the causal link is the wrong way around.
If you think motivation fits your idea and is more down-to-earth, absolutely feel completely free to use it in your post. I would replace the mathematically rational section with a section about motivation; the mathematically rational stuff feels a little bit unlike the other examples.
Your distinction between signalling and DLAW is sound. Your one sentence summary of the consistency section is brilliant. The introduction and the consistency section are particularly excellent.
Basically, you should republish this, even if it means slogging through all the formatting yourself, even if it means submitting it with some formatting errors, and even if it means staying up half the night and leaving on your trip tired. It’s that good.
Thanks for that!
As for your morality point, I had noticed a similar thing myself and at one point considered adding a section on virtue-ethics to this post, I eventually decided I didn’t have a strong enough case.
You have a good point about motivation, I didn’t think of that.