It is possible that symbolic, but not exactly true, beliefs have some downstream benefit, such as serving as negotiation tactics, loyalty tests, or a fake-it-till-you-make-it long game that somehow, eventually, becomes a reality. Political theorist Murray Edelman, known for his work on political symbolism, noted that politicians often prefer scoring symbolic points over delivering results—it’s easier. Leaders can offer symbolism when they have little tangible to provide.
Wait, this is a… a supposition, not an obvious fact?
That people often virtue signal and tailor their purported beliefs as a way to be rhetorically appealing to certain groups?
… Have I woken up in another dimension or is this not just basic social dynamics, psychology, and also political campaign strategy… and marketing?
Did ‘social psychologists’ just now finally catch up to Baudrillard?
I sometimes feel that way when reading certain studies, but it’s important to remember that we need scientific studies to prove things even if they seem obvious to us because that is how science is done. Sometimes the obvious thing ends up being wrong, or we learn new things about the obvious thing.
I mean yes, empirical investigation is always good, but … anybody could have empirically tested this concept at like, basically any time in the last 50 years?
and yet they didn’t?
That is the source of my vexation.
Granted, I don’t purport to know everything about psychology… but yes, I am quite confused as to how this seems to be the first time actual empirical studies have been done on this concept?
I don’t know, I feel that has to be wrong in some way, and that just this article is oddly worded in such a way that my impression from it is that… this is basically a novel concept for these authors.
