This would mean social cues are really bad at reliably conveying information. That seems detrimental to both signalers and recipients.
It’s complicated :-) Social cues do not aim to “reliably convey information”—that’s what words are for (and in the extreme case, that’s what legalese is—a way to express meaning reliably).
Social cues are ambiguous because it’s a feature, not a bug. The ambiguity allows a considerably amount of “free play” (to use a term out of mechanics) and it’s a very useful thing. For example, social cues allow you to express interest without commitment or to express disapproval without giving offense. They allow you to hint, to explore, to go back and forth—to create a fluid situation with possibilities.
Maybe we meant different things by “cues”. The word does seem to mean something non-explicit. Since most messages can be made explicit, keeping them implicit is useful to remain low-key, avoid giving offence or have plausible deniability.
Under that reading, the claim that “most social cues are ambiguous” is almost tautological: if they were unambiguous, they wouldn’t be called cues. This applies to nonverbal signals too: when a person is angry and isn’t trying to hide it, everyone can tell.
I had understood the post differently, but now I’m no longer sure if I was right. Is this what you meant?
I would probably define “cue” as “a signal about what you are expected to do”. Ambiguity is not its defining feature, plenty of social cues are not ambiguous at all. Instead, cues are ignorable and in that respect they are different from direct commands or requests.
Also, in this context there is some ambiguity about ambiguity :-) Is it the case that the signal is deliberately, intentionally ambiguous? That happens a lot in e.g. flirting. Or is it the case that the signal is intended to be straightforward, but the recipient has trouble deciphering it? I suspect that has much to do with not being sufficiently well versed in the local culture, its symbols and ways of expressing itself.
It’s complicated :-) Social cues do not aim to “reliably convey information”—that’s what words are for (and in the extreme case, that’s what legalese is—a way to express meaning reliably).
Social cues are ambiguous because it’s a feature, not a bug. The ambiguity allows a considerably amount of “free play” (to use a term out of mechanics) and it’s a very useful thing. For example, social cues allow you to express interest without commitment or to express disapproval without giving offense. They allow you to hint, to explore, to go back and forth—to create a fluid situation with possibilities.
Maybe we meant different things by “cues”. The word does seem to mean something non-explicit. Since most messages can be made explicit, keeping them implicit is useful to remain low-key, avoid giving offence or have plausible deniability.
Under that reading, the claim that “most social cues are ambiguous” is almost tautological: if they were unambiguous, they wouldn’t be called cues. This applies to nonverbal signals too: when a person is angry and isn’t trying to hide it, everyone can tell.
I had understood the post differently, but now I’m no longer sure if I was right. Is this what you meant?
I would probably define “cue” as “a signal about what you are expected to do”. Ambiguity is not its defining feature, plenty of social cues are not ambiguous at all. Instead, cues are ignorable and in that respect they are different from direct commands or requests.
Also, in this context there is some ambiguity about ambiguity :-) Is it the case that the signal is deliberately, intentionally ambiguous? That happens a lot in e.g. flirting. Or is it the case that the signal is intended to be straightforward, but the recipient has trouble deciphering it? I suspect that has much to do with not being sufficiently well versed in the local culture, its symbols and ways of expressing itself.