Moral outrage = virtue signalling shaped by evolution. Science proves the obvious.

[Joey McGee]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/opinion/sunday/whats-the-point-of-moral-outrage.html

The model involves “costly signaling,” the classic example of which is the peacock’s tail. Only healthy male peacocks with high-quality genes can manage to produce extravagant plumages, so these tails — precisely because of how “resource intensive” they are — function as honest advertisements to potential mates of a peacock’s genetic quality.

We argue that the same can be true of punishing others for wrongdoing, which can serve as a signal of trustworthiness. This is because punishing others is often costly — but less so for those people who find it worthwhile to be trustworthy. Consider: Trustworthiness pays off for you if others typically reciprocate your good deeds or reward you for good behavior. This includes being rewarded for promoting moral behavior via punishment.

Therefore, if you are a person who finds being trustworthy rewarding, you’ll typically also find punishing less costly. Our mathematical model shows that, as a result, choosing to punish wrongdoers can work like a peacock’s tail — if I see you punish misbehavior, I can infer that you are likely to be trustworthy.

...

Our theory also explains why people sometimes punish in ways that don’t make sense from the perspective of benefiting the greater good. For example, punishment can sometimes be wildly disproportionate to the perceived offense.

Most normal people are depressed by what has happened to the internet, twitter, the press and modern dinner conversation. I have a lot of hope for the future because I believe that eventually most people will learn this information and the reality of how evolution shaped our cognitive biases like confirmation bias and in-group/out-group bias, leading to more honest and self-aware behavior. Hope for my children... maybe.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We argue that the same can be true of punishing others for wrongdoing, which can serve as a signal of trustworthiness.

This really doesn't seem to be working out all that well... So far..

But maybe after a few million years, like the peacock thing has had time to cook, things will be different.

Doubtful that our children will reap the benefits, if they are there..

 

[angrysoba]

"Moral outrage = virtue signalling" that sounds way too cut-and-dried. Surely it would be better to say Moral outrage could be virtue signalling, but might not be.

There might be plenty of reasons why someone gets outraged at behaviour they consider to immoral. The TV presenter John Walsh was no doubt morally outraged by the murder of his son, and subsequent murders probably make him genuinely angry but not because he wants to show off what a great guy he is but maybe because he thinks child murder is wrong and should be stopped.

This is just one example but I am sure you can think of others.

 

[angrysoba]

The model involves “costly signaling,” the classic example of which is the peacock’s tail. Only healthy male peacocks with high-quality genes can manage to produce extravagant plumages, so these tails — precisely because of how “resource intensive” they are — function as honest advertisements to potential mates of a peacock’s genetic quality.

It might also be worth pointing out that if this is a reference to the famous "handicap principle" of Amotz Zahavi then it is a premise that is still pretty contentious. I think calling anything that relies on the truth of this to be "proved" is putting things a bit strong.

 

[Joey McGee]

Yes, my sensationalist headline does not capture the measured language that the authors use in the paper or the article but I really didn't foresee people would take that literally.

"Our paper helps address an evolutionary mystery: Why would a selfless tendency like moral outrage result from the “selfish” process of evolution? One important piece of the answer is that expressing moral outrage actually does benefit you, in the long run, by improving your reputation."

Oh I'm outraged... they should have said "may be"... see what I mean?

I can be just as much of a nitpicker. Whenever a study comes out that is a replication or the same idea as something already proven and it hits the news as if it's the first time anyone has reached this conclusion I want to give up reading the news but, they didn't mean it's the first time, they just mean that this study was published.

 

[Garrette]

This may sound flippant, but is this (and the handicap principle that angrysoba mentioned) simply the hypothesized evolutionary version of "Only Nixon can go to China" or "Only real men can wear pink?"

 

[Joey McGee]

Well if we're talking about the kind of outrage displayed by Trump I think you have a solid point, hey-o! I think the center of this study is how people are led to trust people more for punishing, whereas you don't get that just from successful displays of status. As they say "we do see this theory as helping to explain why humans developed a psychology of outrage in the first place"

I do all of my psychology right from the armchair.