Most public arguments don’t try to change minds; they signal loyalty, coordinate allies, and attack out‑groups. Recurring behaviors—Hitler comparisons, shouting, straw‑manning, nutpicking, echo chambers, and war metaphors—make sense as in‑group performance, not persuasion.
— Seeing debate as coalition signaling reframes political communication, media incentives, and platform norms away from 'convincing opponents' and toward managing identity and status dynamics.
2025.10.07
68% relevant
The article argues voters 'liked' their candidate because they first hated the opponent, a dynamic arising from splitting; this aligns with the view that public argument and preference are downstream of group identity and signaling rather than dispassionate evaluation.
Robin Hanson
2025.09.28
78% relevant
Hanson argues left and right optimize for provoking rivals and inducing bad-looking overreactions rather than pursuing coherent ideological goals, aligning with the 'arguments as loyalty signaling and out‑group attack' lens rather than persuasion-focused politics.
Lionel Page
2025.09.26
78% relevant
The article frames ideology as a bargaining tool rather than a truth-seeking project, and says coalitions under less challenge can rely on weaker arguments—aligning with the view that public arguments primarily coordinate coalitions rather than persuade opponents.
Robin Hanson
2025.09.14
70% relevant
Hanson claims 'most public talk on abstract beliefs is vibes' driven by status and association rather than careful analysis, which aligns with the view that much public argument functions to signal and coordinate coalitions rather than to persuade on truth.
Lionel Page
2025.08.15
78% relevant
The article argues political narratives are constructed to advance coalition interests and tolerate inconsistency unless challenged, aligning with the view that most public argument functions to coordinate allies rather than to discover truth; it adds that scientific facts act as an external check on those signals.
Lionel Page
2025.08.01
82% relevant
Page argues people reason as 'press secretaries' for their group, cites evidence of limited persuasion (Taber & Lodge), and uses the MAGA split over Epstein disclosures to show coalition‑first cognition—directly echoing the claim that public arguments mostly signal loyalty rather than persuade.
David Pinsof
2024.12.09
100% relevant
Pinsof catalogs Hitler analogies, straw‑manning, whataboutism, echo chambers, and war‑framed rhetoric as the dominant features of online argument.