Signaling Virtue with a mask,
When I enter any kind of store I wear a face mask of some sort (paper, fabric, or one made with an activated charcoal filter and valve). The scientific consensus seems to be that unless one is wearing an N95 mask, and wearing it properly, one is probably not limiting the distribution of corona virus much. No one claims that it does any harm, either. It's probably a wash.
However, the mask "signals virtue"; it says "this person is responsible, and cares about the health of others." I am responsible, and I do care about the health of the community. The mask declares that loudly and clearly. People who do not wear masks inside are signaling their incompetence: they can't figure out where to get a mask, make a mask, or remember their mask. Or they are signaling their disbelief in public health measures, disbelief I consider a bad thing.
(Some people wear a mask while outside as well. Super virtuous or just carried away?)
Are you wearing a mask inside, and why?
However, the mask "signals virtue"; it says "this person is responsible, and cares about the health of others." I am responsible, and I do care about the health of the community. The mask declares that loudly and clearly. People who do not wear masks inside are signaling their incompetence: they can't figure out where to get a mask, make a mask, or remember their mask. Or they are signaling their disbelief in public health measures, disbelief I consider a bad thing.
(Some people wear a mask while outside as well. Super virtuous or just carried away?)
Are you wearing a mask inside, and why?
Comments (71)
Because they won't let me in if I'm not / will hassle me and throw me out if I don't.
(Seen people thrown out for not doing it right in front of me).
Is that that new pandemic spreading between ravens and crows and some jays and the like?
mehhh
(1) as @Pfhorrest says, it avoids hassle.
(2) it's an easy nod, or recognition that we're all in this together. I do feel that way and this is a convenient symbol.
(3) maybe it works? Doesn't hurt anyway.
(4) I bought a cool mask from a Thai Place (had them in a box when i picked up takeout) and I like the way it looks.
According to the WHO, masks can give you a false sense of protection and can even be a source of infection. Healthy people should only wear a mask when taking care of someone with covid-19.
The potential risks of masks are as follows.
- self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask
• depending on type of mask used, potential breathing difficulties
• false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
• diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of mask for health care workers
• diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene
But it seems obvious to me that a mask would block droplets to some degree, and might be useful for those who tend to spit when they talk.
That being said, if wearing a mask becomes an issue of conformity and virtue signalling, I will not be wearing one.
it's a combination of coronavirus and covid-19 because I want to be inclusive towards all terms. I'm pretty much the most inclusive awesomeist person out there.
That's a good counter-signal, right there. See if people are signalling something, so you can react by counter-signalling. Nothing like defining yourself by countersignalling signals. Some would think that this way-of-living suggests a resentment that has metastasized - why would anyone base their choices around reactions to others' choices otherwise? defining themselves in terms of the people they hate, even as a negative outline?
But who knows, really?
Maybe you just know that when you walk into a convenience store without a mask, people will know you're the real deal, no limp-noodle liberal. 'That's a cool guy,' people with sunglasses on motorcycles will say, 'That's not someone who has tragically come to define himself entirely in reaction to the people he professes to hate, so that nothing of himself is left. He's just a very cool, not-sad-at-all guy.'
Forgive the naivety, but if my mask is contaminated, and there is a danger of it contaminating me, doesn't that mean it's working?
1. As long as there is a a shortage of PPE, the public cannot trust advice about PPE for the general public.
2. The main function of a mask in public spaces is to protect other people from the wearer's possible infection. It doesn't stop one breathing it in, but greatly reduces how much one breathes out. This is why it is a virtue signal.
3. It worked in the middle ages against the plague.
4. After all the kind words about Muslims covering their faces, masks have enormous irony value.
There is no such scientific consensus. The evidence is mixed, but the consensus, if anything, is that masks are somewhat effective, some more than others. Don't fall victim to all-or-nothing thinking: even a 20% reduction of the probability of transmission is better than nothing.
That is likely true of people who like to signal to others, for whatever reason. But absent the motive to show off, there are many other valid reasons to refrain from adopting habits and norms others have adopted without question.
Technically, true: No consensus. However, there is consistently less certainty about the value of various kinds of masks people are wearing than the value of social distancing (6 feet), hand washing after promiscuous contact with publicly touched surfaces (door handles, bus / subway straps, hand railings, store check-out equipment, etc.
True, 20% reduction of risk IS better than nothing, but avoidance of avoidable pubic contact is too. I for one don't get around much these days. I don't like it, but...
I think the reasoning of the WHO is that there was, as of the time of their guidance, little scientific evidence of their efficacy in certain situations, and that the unintended consequences of such measures (leaving little masks for doctors and nurses for example) could be dire. Their stance is subject to revision given more study and resources, I’m sure.
Masks are certainly made which can be worn for hours and remain effective. These are not generally available to members of the public, or are quite expensive. Many masks -
do not fit very firmly against the face (without beard hair) and therefore leak air. beards cause extensive air leaking, unless the mask can be fastened tightly against the face/hair
get wet from moisture in one's exhaled air and soften or disintegrate fairly soon (if made out of paper)
are quite uncomfortable after a period of time; this results in people fidgeting with the mask, getting virus on their fingers (if infected), and then fingering the can of corn you will buy 10 minutes later
do not actually stop all droplets from coughs, sneezes, or talking from escaping the mask enclosure
Still and all, I do wear the best mask I can find when in enclosed pubic places.
The great thing about labeling behaviours as "virtue signaling" is that you get to identify the signaler as a hypocrite and can dismiss both them and their behaviour without having to actually go to the considerable inconvenience of questioning your own behaviour.
The great thing about dismissing the 'labelling of behaviours as virtue signalling', is that you get to ignore the problems with virtue signalling whilst maintaining your ability to gain the social advantages of doing so.
We could go on...
Yea, @Bitter Crank!
Other people proclaiming how virtuous they are makes you relatively less virtuous by comparison... You must therefore question your own behavior post-haste! (After all these years, your virtue remains fully intact I trust!).
It seems like the best strategy is to avoid using hasty generalisations like that in the first place. It's not like you cannot debate the pros and cons of a behaviour without engaging in armchair psychoanalysis.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's of course nonsense, and not anything I said.
As to the OP, My work is debating wearing masks among other policies if and when we go back to the office. We did an anonymous survey, and a significant number of responses indicated either that masks were too uncomfortable to wear for hours at a time, or the lack of faith in coworkers to follow the rules, so we should all just remain working at home until their is a vaccine.
Quoting Echarmion
So why should we question our own behavior when we encounter someone that is "virtue signaling"?
Is it because we should be jealous of their virtue?
How do you know they are virtue signaling and not actually virtuous? Just saying they're "just signalling" doesn't make it so.
Indeed. Although a bit of armchair psychoanalysis might be thrown in for good measure...after all, we're doing everything else here from the armchair here, why not psychoanalysis too?
Quoting Marchesk
The great thing about just saying "ah fuck it I'm going to watch Netflix" is that you get to go and watch Netflix...or is that the bad thing about it...?
I'm not really involved in this whole mask/non-mask issue being semi-retired anyway and living rurally, but as a bit of armchair psychoanalysis...
Masks look cool (pace Hong-Kong protests), they make a strong permanent visual statement and they can be profited from. There's also debate about the usefulness, yet they're being widely adopted and politicised.
Hand-washing doesn't look cool, it makes you look like an OCD-suffering nerd, it's usually done in private and it cannot be profited from. There's virtually no debate at all about how absolutely vital it is, yet It's being far less well adopted than it should and with very little political support.
So which aspect seems likely to be responsible for widespread adoption and politicisation?
Sometimes they doth virtue signal too much, me thinks...
Because it's usually done in a dismissive manner and amounts to little more than an ad-hominem.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Can you answer the question or are you just virtue signaling?
I thought we were avoiding judging worth by hasty generalisations?
Clever, but then I am saying we shouldn't do it because it doesn't usually end well. I am not judging someone.
Do you want a hypothetical example of why it might be obvious that someone is virtue signaling? A real world anecdote perhaps?
I'd like to know what methods you'd practically apply to figure out if someone is virtue signalling or not. Short of them outright telling you that's what they're doing.
Fair enough, I was being a little facetious and did get the distinction you were making really.
I do seriously think that armchair psychoanalysis gets an unfairly bad rep though. It rarely yields solid answers, but then few 'armchair' activities do. Our motives (including hidden and subconscious ones) are a massive part of our interactions and the way we form beliefs and concepts. If speculation about them is too early ruled 'out of play' then we're going to miss most of what's going on. I think abandoning it is excessive, just taking it with the very large pinch of salt all armchair analysis requires is sufficient.
Statistical inference. When someone is too offended on behalf of a fashionable cause that doesn't affect them, there's medium to high correlation with virtue-signalling.
But this threat isn't about the virtuous merit of a given cause, it's about what signalling support for causes can mean about an individual.
Well said!
I wear a mask because it almost certainly has some value in protecting others if I should be infected and not know it. And, not incidentally, it does show that I am one with others trying to get through this thing. It is the kind of thing Trump would be doing to greater advantage...if he only had a brain.
And if everyone wore masks then that would mean there would be a double barrier between people.
Also a 20% reduction in the reproduction number (R) can mean a disproportionately large reduction in infections and deaths after a number of infection rounds.
For example, suppose R is 2 (i.e., a single person infects 2 others who each then go on to infect 2 others and so on). On the 10th infection round, 1024 people would be infected (2^10), for a total of 2047. If universal mask-wearing reduces R by 20% to 1.6 then, on the 10th infection round, only 110 people would be infected (1.6^10) for a total of 292. That's almost a 90% reduction in infections - a massive benefit.
Masks are really a no-brainer if everyone does it. A low cost/inconvenience with a massive potential upside.
You can make your own. Even home-made masks provide some level of protection.
On the flip side, "covidiot" shaming is also a thing now.
I guess it depends on what we're doing. For large groups and general trends, I think a discussion by laymen can be useful.
The more personal you're making it, the more it approaches poisoning the well. And the more difficult it gets, because there are a lot of biases associated with judging other people's intentions and character. Plus if it's an issue you feel strongly about, you'll be inclined to attribute negative character to whoever holds an opposing view.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And you have established this correlation by researching the psychology of signaling, rather than just, say, pulling it out of your ass?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I thought this thread was originally about our personal feelings about masks, as per the question in the OP:
"Are you wearing a mask inside, and why?"
This is exactly on the mark. There is an incentive to disinform. From their standpoint, if they tell people that masks work, then everyone goes out and buys up all the masks and none remain for medical professionals. So they tell people that masks don't work very well. And yet, notice that masks, even surgical masks, are considered by the same people to be SO, SO important for medical professionals! If they didn't work, why are they trying to protect the supply for medical professionals? If we had an adequate supply of masks to go around with no worry of a shortage, the official advice would be different, you can be sure! But partly, they also consider the general public to be stupid and to be incapable of using a mask properly.
If used properly, masks help to some degree. It's obvious.
Yes, surgical masks don't seal very well. But they catch droplets when talking, coughing, sneezing, and so on, reducing your chances of giving something to others. They probably aren't super-effective for reducing your chances of catching something though, as lots of air comes in around the sides unfiltered. And even the filter isn't so great. Better than nothing though! If it reduces your chances by 20%, that is significant.
But better masks, like N95s, are actually quite effective. If everyone had access to those and we were all wearing them properly when in public spaces, our situation would likely be very different.
I don't wear a mask and don't own one. I've never worn one that I can recall. Mask use frequency is directly related to the number of miles one is from the center of downtown. As I am 35 miles north of the city in the suburbs, mask use is spotty at best. As you move farther north, it's not clear there is a pandemic.
I'm not sure I signal anything from lack of mask usage because I'm pretty much like those around me.
I'm not convinced my lack of a mask has any effect on those with masks, so I don't need to make a show of wearing a mask to let them know I care. They can care about themselves by wearing a mask and letting me die like I deserve.
On the other hand, I do wear pants as a showing of virtue, but, when I don't, I do wear a condom, just to be sure I don't get pregnant or otherwise spread my brand of germ warfare. I'm a good citizen like that.
There's a weird thing where rare people just keep testing positive as if their immune systems arent eliminating the virus for some reason.. Some have symptoms and some don't.
You cannot get the virus through your skin, but can only get it through your mucus membranes. That would include your eyes, nose, and mouth, and your exposed vagina. So, I would think that if you wore a mask that ought be enough to protect you, plus my lack of a mask is open and obvious, which should lead you and your exposed vagina to remain at a distance.
Where I live, everyone is out and about, and the malls have even opened up. We've beaten this disease. I suggest you do the same and stop going on and on about masks and what ought be done with them.
This presents a problem in Philadelphia which is why they had to issue a public health warning about it...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PHLPublicHealth/status/1255941752164401153[/tweet]
https://twitter.com/PHLPublicHealth/status/1255941752164401153
I don't represent criminals. I represent defendants in civil suits, protecting the insurance companies' money. I don't represent the little man. I represent the man.
Do you have a reference?
The best part is, "Forget the environment, save yourselves!" at 0:32.
The best is just to wear it on your head. It signals that you took the effort to don a mask, but you don't care enough to pull it down!
Standards pulled from one's ass can be satisfied in the same manner. Is your argument that nobody has ever signaled virtue for the positive social sanctions that might be bestowed as a result?
Quoting Echarmion
Maybe I misread the title and the OP...
Is Bitter Crank trying to tell us that we should wear a mask inside? Is he curious about whether or not we wear masks inside?
Why would he bring up virtue signaling and explain why mask/no-mask inside signals virtue/incompetence, while also pointing out how downright easy it is to acquire and wear a mask?
I think that he is saying while we should certainly be wearing masks inside, the way we process the sight of others with or without masks (especially inside) is now a kind of moral signal in and of itself...
As if merely wearing a mask gives you some kind of moral coupon that can be exchanged at a later time for adulation and anger from or at others... Right of rebuke...
No.
All this has been repeated over and over -- so I'm comfortable calling it a consensus.
Donald Trump is unanimous in his opinion that he should definitely be swallowing hydroxychloroquine, and I think he should take as much as he can swallow. More, more, Donald! Eat more hydroxychloroquine! You are the Maximum Test Subject/stable genius. We need to know what the fatal dose is, so more, more.
This has become the essence of the Republican party and supporters of Trump. Hate the liberals so much (thanks mainstream media -- i.e., conservative radio, Fox News, etc) that we'll destroy ourselves, our future, any notion of "truth" or expertise, etc.
It's certainly sad.
Quoting NOS4A2
The latter quote seems unequivocally to be about counter-signals, but I'm not aiming for conversion or self-recognition. At this point, I'm just fascinated by rationalizations in the wild, formed in real-time - how do you go about making consistent those two quotes?
I think they’re consistent, and honest. Choosing to wear a mask or not doesn’t have to be a form of ostentation. I think the question should be: how are you are able to receive a signal, counter or otherwise, if I am not sending one? Reading the delightful fiction you wrote about a no limp-noodle liberal, one can see how this is achieved.
How absolutely everything is politicized by some is evident again in the discourse, btw.
True, but little different from any other type of analysis, that was my point. Looking to underlying psychological precursors to holding a particular belief (or expressing a particular belief - not necessarily the same thing) does indeed suffer from the risks you suggest, but so does a psychology-free analysis. Selection of evidence with which to counter someone's stated belief is riddled with bias, selecting the wording used to describe that evidence is inclined to be negative or positive depending on your beliefs.
Bias and negative rhetoric are simply flaws which can creep equally into any type of analysis, even cold hard science. I can see some types of analysis being more inviting than others, but to be honest psychological analysis isn't even highest on that list. If one accuses others of, say, virtue-signalling, as here one can at least point to relatively well thought out and controlled experiments in social psychology to hint at the possibility. Where's the equivalent in, say, discussions about the logic of the Kalam cosmological argument? I think you'd be on much safer ground (in terms of removing bias) discussing the possible psychological motivations behind the beliefs of each party in such a discussion than you would just analysing the propositions for logical flaws. At least you'd have some empirical support for positions in the former case.
Oh so that's what surgical masks are for? To make those notoriously smoke-filled, asbestos-lined hospitals more safe for medical personnel? Who would've thunk.
Quoting COVID-19 epidemic: disentangling the re-emerging controversy about medical facemasks from an epidemiological perspective (Int J Epidemiol. 2020)
Surgical masks protect a person from droplet transmitted organisms. Droplets are produced by coughing or sneezing.
N95 masks protect from airborne transmitted stuff that floats on air currents. No cough is required, just regular breathing.
This coronavirus has airborne transmission. In a hospital, they use N95 masks for known or suspected covid-19 cases.
Sure, it makes sense that masks made out of normal cloth don't block viruses. It also makes sense that they alter the pattern of aerosol that you are breathing out.
No, that's not my argument. We are social creatures, and probably do a lot of signaling. My argument is that you have no reliable way to establish when someone is doing it. So any accusation of virtue signaling is merely ad-hom.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's a good reading. I initially took it as tongue in cheek, but the subsequent comments do support your take.
Pure egoism. We all do this consciously or unconsciously not because we are in essence good people, but because we all want to be "seen" by others as good people.
To all:
Thanks for the responses. After reading through them I will withdraw the suggestion that mask wearing is virtue signally. Maybe it signals solidarity, or the intent to comply, but not virtue.
Is it therefore more important to be seen as good, than to actually be good? It's interesting how our stated moral systems say the opposite.
In the kind of society that we are included, it is visible the "theater" of good deeds that everyone preaches, and meanwhile, internally hate. The act is more importante than the performance.
Quoting Marchesk
Of course it does. - Doublethink - Doing an act of "goodness" is seen with good eyes, it is rewarding, both to the person doing the act, as to the one seeing it. The former will be seen as virtuous, and the later as responsible and good-willed.