I think there is something real that the concept of “luxury beliefs” points at, but I agree that the usual explanation is confusing for various reasons you mention in this article.
So what exactly is it about? Let’s look at “sexual promiscuity, drug experimentation or abolishing the police”, because they seem to me like the prototypical examples of the concept.
The first two seem like instances of “it is okay to do dangerous things (if you have a good safety net)”. The last one seems like an instance of “let’s abolish public X (if you don’t need so much X, or you are already paying for private X)”. In both cases, there is a recommendation to do something, without mentioning that there is a reason why doing so is relatively safe for you but could be dangerous for others, in a way that is connected with social status (the behavior is relatively safe for high-status people and dangerous for the low-status ones).
By being cavalier about the danger, you signal that you are not among the lower-status people for whom following the advice is dangerous. The people for whom the behavior is dangerous are either smart enough to realize it, but they won’t publicly contradict you, because that would mean drawing attention to their lower status; or are stupid and will follow your advice and will get hurt (which is what makes it a costly signal).
Imagine the beliefs stated in a way that “checks your privilege” instead:
it is okay to experiment with drugs, as long as you are white, your parents are rich enough to keep you out of prison, you can buy relatively pure stuff (as opposed to contaminated shit), and in worst case your parents can pay you an addiction treatment and keep it a secret from your future employers;
it is okay to have multiple sexual partners as long as your parents would support you getting an abortion (for women) or would help you pay the child support in case your partner gets pregnant and refuses to get an abortion (for men), you are financially independent so you can leave your current partner whenever you choose to, in case of sexually transmitted disease you can afford medical treatment, and you live in a sufficiently large city that you can easily avoid your exes and make new friends who don’t know them;
reducing the police force will not have an immediate negative impact on you, if you live in a safe part of the city that doesn’t need a lot of them, or you are already paying for a private security force anyway.
These are factual statements that people can agree with whether the conditions apply to them or don’t. Therefore, agreeing with these statements does not signal whether the conditions apply to you.
It is the version without the disclaimers that signals that the conditions apply to you in a deniable way. (You can pretend to sincerely believe that promiscuity and drug experiments and abolishing the police are actually safe for everyone. Just like the fish that doesn’t see the water, you don’t see the wealth you are swimming in.)
I was trying to think about another example. In some way “it is a great idea to take a huge debt to get to an elite university” seems related, but it is a weaker example, because it talks about money explicitly. A better example would be something that costs a lot of money to do safely, but the money is not mentioned, and the statement is made like it is perfectly safe for everyone and only a stupid person would disagree. Maybe “quit your boring job and follow your passion”? Eh, still too obviously connected to money. A better example would be something like telling everyone to go study philosophy at a prestigious university because it is great for your mind and soul (while carefully avoiding any hint at how expensive that would be, and how it might impact your later job search). The problem is that this advice is time-limited; it would be a good “luxury belief” for a high-school student.
By being cavalier about the danger, you signal that you are not among the lower-status people for whom following the advice is dangerous. The people for whom the behavior is dangerous are either smart enough to realize it, but they won’t publicly contradict you, because that would mean drawing attention to their lower status; or are stupid and will follow your advice and will get hurt (which is what makes it a costly signal).
This is a really good reformulation of the underlying idea behind “luxury beliefs” that improves upon it and makes it much more useful.
I think there is something real that the concept of “luxury beliefs” points at, but I agree that the usual explanation is confusing for various reasons you mention in this article.
So what exactly is it about? Let’s look at “sexual promiscuity, drug experimentation or abolishing the police”, because they seem to me like the prototypical examples of the concept.
The first two seem like instances of “it is okay to do dangerous things (if you have a good safety net)”. The last one seems like an instance of “let’s abolish public X (if you don’t need so much X, or you are already paying for private X)”. In both cases, there is a recommendation to do something, without mentioning that there is a reason why doing so is relatively safe for you but could be dangerous for others, in a way that is connected with social status (the behavior is relatively safe for high-status people and dangerous for the low-status ones).
By being cavalier about the danger, you signal that you are not among the lower-status people for whom following the advice is dangerous. The people for whom the behavior is dangerous are either smart enough to realize it, but they won’t publicly contradict you, because that would mean drawing attention to their lower status; or are stupid and will follow your advice and will get hurt (which is what makes it a costly signal).
Imagine the beliefs stated in a way that “checks your privilege” instead:
it is okay to experiment with drugs, as long as you are white, your parents are rich enough to keep you out of prison, you can buy relatively pure stuff (as opposed to contaminated shit), and in worst case your parents can pay you an addiction treatment and keep it a secret from your future employers;
it is okay to have multiple sexual partners as long as your parents would support you getting an abortion (for women) or would help you pay the child support in case your partner gets pregnant and refuses to get an abortion (for men), you are financially independent so you can leave your current partner whenever you choose to, in case of sexually transmitted disease you can afford medical treatment, and you live in a sufficiently large city that you can easily avoid your exes and make new friends who don’t know them;
reducing the police force will not have an immediate negative impact on you, if you live in a safe part of the city that doesn’t need a lot of them, or you are already paying for a private security force anyway.
These are factual statements that people can agree with whether the conditions apply to them or don’t. Therefore, agreeing with these statements does not signal whether the conditions apply to you.
It is the version without the disclaimers that signals that the conditions apply to you in a deniable way. (You can pretend to sincerely believe that promiscuity and drug experiments and abolishing the police are actually safe for everyone. Just like the fish that doesn’t see the water, you don’t see the wealth you are swimming in.)
I was trying to think about another example. In some way “it is a great idea to take a huge debt to get to an elite university” seems related, but it is a weaker example, because it talks about money explicitly. A better example would be something that costs a lot of money to do safely, but the money is not mentioned, and the statement is made like it is perfectly safe for everyone and only a stupid person would disagree. Maybe “quit your boring job and follow your passion”? Eh, still too obviously connected to money. A better example would be something like telling everyone to go study philosophy at a prestigious university because it is great for your mind and soul (while carefully avoiding any hint at how expensive that would be, and how it might impact your later job search). The problem is that this advice is time-limited; it would be a good “luxury belief” for a high-school student.
This is a really good reformulation of the underlying idea behind “luxury beliefs” that improves upon it and makes it much more useful.