Call this kind of reasoning the semiotic fallacy: Thinking about the semiotics of possible actions without estimating the consequences of the semiotics.
But you could equally well write a post on the “anti-semiotic fallacy” where you only think about the immediate and obvious consequences of an action, and not about the signals it sends.
I think that rationalists are much more susceptible to the anti-semiotic fallacy in our personal lives. And also to an extent when thinking about global or local politics and economics.
For example, I suspect that I suffered a lot of bullying at school for exactly the reason given in this post: being keen to avoid conflict in early encounters at a school (among other factors).
But you could equally well write a post on the “anti-semiotic fallacy” where you only think about the immediate and obvious consequences of an action, and not about the signals it sends.
I think that rationalists are much more susceptible to the anti-semiotic fallacy in our personal lives. And also to an extent when thinking about global or local politics and economics.
For example, I suspect that I suffered a lot of bullying at school for exactly the reason given in this post: being keen to avoid conflict in early encounters at a school (among other factors).