
The Surprising Power of Virtue Labeling - rbanffy
http://nautil.us/issue/61/coordinates/why-you-should-tell-everyone-theyre-honest
======
nstart
I appreciate the ideas of this article (and book). It's a hard to digest one
and possibly controversial as well. But at least with raising children, it
does seem to work. Especially in the negative way.

There's a pattern parents are supposed to follow now. When a child does
something undesirable, you criticise the individual action. When they do
something desirable, you praise the overall quality.

Eg - Child attempts to pull glass off table. Instead of calling them naughty
or careless, we explain to them that doing things that could break glass is
dangerous to them and the people around.

When a child picks up their toys and puts them back where they belong, we say
"thank you for being so helpful", or "thank you for being so neat".

At least anecdotally, calling children mischievous tends to have this kind of
reinforcement on them where they then start to adopt the label of being
mischievous.

Admittedly, I don't know if it's just confirmation bias. It could be me
thinking of their behaviour differently by avoiding any labels in my head too.

~~~
ThomPete
If that was the case we would live in a very different world. Discipline is
necessary for children, they cant reason, why something is supposed to be in a
certain way, so speaking to them like they do at an age of 5, is the real
danger here.

As they grow older and understand more complex concepts you can start to
educate them on the nuances and reasons but in my experience, they will
automatically start asking you at the right age and you should be able to just
use that as your trajectory IMO.

~~~
jacobolus
I’m not really sure what you mean by “discipline”.

Anecdotally, as the parent of a not-quite-2-year-old, I have found that when I
treat 2- to 4-year-old kids at the playground with basic human respect, and
pay attention to their interests and feelings, they end up following me all
around subsequently (and e.g. running over to me when they see me the next
week, wanting to show me their toys and tricks, ...), as if they were craving
non-controlling non-judgmental human interaction they otherwise were not
receiving from other people they interact with on a regular basis.

Watching other parents and caretakers, there are a substantial proportion who
constantly deny kids’ feelings, tell them what they are supposed to feel and
think, baby them by doing things for them that they could do for themselves,
prevent them from doing not-very-risky things ostensibly for safety reasons,
pointlessly force them to do irrelevant things they don’t want to do, etc.

YMMV.

~~~
ThomPete
Thank you for asking. I don't mean "discipline" in a physical way of course. I
simply mean that I am not going to explain to them why they are not allowed to
do certain things or why I want them to do certain things when they are too
young because they don't' understand why. I was responding to the idea that
you need to explain to kids why or we would get mischievous kids.

With regards to the feelings. It's not as simple as you seem to portray. Kids
will use that to get things their way there are plenty examples of parents who
accept all their kid's emotions at face value and end up running around being
controlled by their kids.

So a balance is needed.

And yes I agree that they should do as many things themselves which also for
our kids means getting a lot of bruises for falling down from things (within
reason obviously)

It's all about balance. Don't deny your kid their emotions when they are real
but "call them on their bluff" when they are not. That's my approach at least.

~~~
jacobolus
> _I simply mean that I am not going to explain to them why they are not
> allowed to do certain things or why I want them to do certain things when
> they are too young because they don 't understand why._

You might be surprised. Even when kids don’t fully understand the explanation,
they can understand tone of voice, and might still appreciate that the adult
has reasons for acting and is trying to explain instead of making decisions
capriciously. The act of explaining also forces the adult to think about the
reasons for their decisions, which gives a chance for reconsideration when the
decision was in fact arbitrary. Finally, explaining things gets both parties
in the habit of talking about their feelings and decisions instead of
expecting everyone around to guess them and then getting mad when they are not
understood.

(For a simple example, if we just read the same book 3 times in a row, and I
want to read something else, I can either (a) explain that I am bored with the
book and need some variety to keep my sanity, and let the kid pick the next
book, or (b) realize that I don’t actually care which book we are reading, and
just dive in for time #4; either of those is better than just “we aren’t
reading that book again, we are reading this one” which is just a unilateral
decision.)

> _With regards to the feelings. It 's not as simple as you seem to portray.
> Kids will use that to get things their way there are plenty examples of
> parents who accept all their kid's emotions at face value and end up running
> around being controlled by their kids._

For instance, when someone falls down and is fussing, either “oh get up, you
are fine, that didn’t hurt” or “oh my gosh! you must be really hurt! let me
smother you in kisses and make it better!” are telling the kid what to
feel/think, and if the response doesn’t actually match the severity of the
fall, then this is quite confusing for the kid. A better response is “are you
alright?”; then the kid can decide if they are actually just surprised, or if
they are in pain and want comforting, or if they are seriously injured and
need more significant help.

Again, anecdotally, I have observed that the parents who get run over by their
kids tend to be the same ones who are consistently ignoring or denying the
kids’ feelings (or sometimes largely ignoring the kids’ existence unless they
are misbehaving). Demanding things and throwing tantrums is one of the few
ways the kids find to get the attention they crave.

Accepting someone’s feelings doesn’t mean giving them whatever they want. It
just means listening to what they are actually saying, and then responding to
that in an empathetic way (a good start is to just echo back what they are
saying or what you think they might be feeling).

To any parents out there: I recommend the book _How to Talk So Kids Will
Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk_.

~~~
ThomPete
Besides the first part which I just don't agree with I agree with the other
things and as I said it's not either or but finding a balance.

The kids are looking to you to find out what maximises your attention so
that's what you have to manage before anything else. Of course you are not
just saying "oh get up, your are fine" to someone who is actually crying
because they hurt themselves but there is plenty of room from that and then to
someone who cries for every little thing.

So again balance. Read the situation and react to that.

~~~
jacobolus
In my opinion it is never appropriate to tell someone who just fell down and
is making a crying sound “oh get up, you are fine, stop crying” etc. No
response at all would be better. But you do you.

~~~
ThomPete
Where have I said it was appropriate? Strawman much.

------
westoncb
> Beyond these preliminary observations, though, there does not seem to be a
> well-developed and widely accepted model in the psychology literature to
> explain how character labeling makes such a difference.

Sure there is. The results can by explained by how the brain resolves/reduces
cognitive dissonance:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Reduction)

A central feature of many contemporary cognitive models is the notion of a
'schema,' which can be thought of as a record of beliefs/assertions on some
subject. Cognitive dissonance arises when observations create a contradiction
within a schema; reduction of cognitive dissonance involves modifying the
schema in a way that (as best as possible) accounts for all observations.
(Sometimes there isn't a good way of doing it and some pretty strange behavior
may result.)

Another way of looking at it is that your schemas constrain your behavior so
that the actions you take, insofar as it's possible, are consistent with both
your goals and your relevant schemata.

So if you can actually modify someone's schema for the subject of their self,
you can influence their behavior so that it becomes consistent with that
modification.

Hence, theoretically, you tell someone they're "so compassionate" etc. and
they start playing the part. Now, in practice, I doubt this will do much. Your
statements are a bit of data supporting some assertion that can become part of
their 'self schema,' but there's a whole lot of other data coming from other
places that will conflict with the b.s. you're telling the person.

~~~
yosito
I believe there are also studies about the psychology of not wanting to let
people down and about loss-aversion which also have an application here.

~~~
westoncb
That's s good point. Could definitely be an amplifying factor.

------
peatmoss
I’m not necessarily a fan of telling people “you’re an X person” (other than
whimsically like as in “you’re a gentleman and a scholar”). But I am a fan of
biasing feedback in favor of praising good actions rather than condemning the
faults.

I had a two music teachers back in the day. One would call me on every flaw in
a fairly negative way. I got to the point of dreading my weekly lesson. I got
to college and the prof there gave targeted attaboys for things I was doing
well, or (this is key) showed signs of improvement at. I worked much harder
for the attaboys than I did to avoid disparagement.

That’s not to say flaws can’t be corrected ever... it’s just that positive
encouragement is typically more effective than negative signaling in my
experience.

~~~
slededit
There are people that respond better to (constructive) criticism than praise.
To me praise has zero meaning and I can't really do anything with it. A good
criticism however gives me information on how to improve.

------
jdoliner
Follow this author's advice and a generation from now you may find yourself in
a world where none of these virtuous labels have any meaning at all. That's
the real hell right there, imagine a world not where everyone is dishonest,
but where it's impossible to even distinguish honesty from dishonesty, your
mind has been compromised, you can't even articulate the difference between
the two. This is what we've seen happen with the self-esteem movement over the
past 3 decades, no one even really knows what that phrase means, it's just
this weird mantra people like to recite.

~~~
robotkdick
I had the same reaction after reading the article. I have a feeling we're in
for more and more of this sort of "meta" research, which leads to more and
more meaninglessness.

It feels like something out of a Kafka or Orwell or PK Dick novel.

Next up: compassion training!

~~~
andrei_says_
I _do_ teach compassion. Mainly to people who need it in their relationship
with themselves and their children.

It has a lot to do with un-teaching (self-)oppression and habitual cruelty.

It’s a wonderful superpower I have, limited by the fact that I can only teach
it to someone whose request is sincere.

~~~
robotkdick
My comment was a joke based on mass requirement through social pressure of
people to self-oppress as presented in novels such as "1984."

Phillip K. Dick also described a machine in "Do Robots Dream of Electric
Sheep," which injected the right chemicals to emulate emotional
predispositions, such as compassion.

That said, I'm certain your one-on-one training is very helpful to those with
an open heart and mind. My brother had to go to AA after drinking and beating
his son. The whole time he complained, and I couldn't help thinking to myself,
who beats their child and cannot muster up enough compassion to admit they
were wrong. He was later diagnosed as manic, and I've noticed he also
demonstrates a predilection for self-cruelty (per your comment).

He works at Oracle (for example). No disrespect meant to people who work at
Oracle, but I've heard it's not a very easy-going place to work.

~~~
andrei_says_
Thank you for the clarification, I did miss the reference.

Your brother’s story brings me sadness. I see a lot of suffering, both for him
and for the ones around him. I hope he is able to find a way toward healing.
Introspection can be an important step of this process.

Labeling is a violent process as it replaces the person in our relationship
with the label we project onto them, thus confining them to that projection,
taking away from their humanity. It is easy to recognize it when applied with
the explicit purpose of dehumanization (Jews as “vermin”, immigrants/refuges
as “illegals”).

Mental health diagnoses do a bit or a lot of this, too, unless one is able to
intentionally look at the diagnosed as a human being, especially in difficult
situations.

The mention of Oracle makes me think that Pieter Hintjens’ book, Psychopath
Code, may be of interest for you — it looks into the mental health of
organizations.
[https://legacy.gitbook.com/@hintjens](https://legacy.gitbook.com/@hintjens)

------
dgreensp
If you don’t prejudge everyone as lacking virtue, you have no reason to
insincerely tell them they are virtuous to try to make them more virtuous.

If you want to do some good in the world, sincerely appreciate the good in
people and help them feel seen in it.

------
everdev
> The idea is to attach a label to people you know. Labels make a big
> difference. For with that label attached to them, there is a good chance
> that they will try to live up to it. And perhaps the more they care about
> living up to the label, such as honest person, the more they will actually
> become that honest person.

I could see this working in some contexts, but in others I'd be worried about
trying to influence someone's identity or self-awareness.

I'd imagine the pressure of trying to live up to a label you didn't choose for
yourself could be overwhelming for some people.

~~~
_jal
I know people who do this, and I have to resist the urge to bait them.
Frankly, I find behaviors like this manipulative, and have enough of a
cantankerous streak to manipulate back, if I notice it and become irritated
enough.

Another side of this is that I've seen people do this when frustrated, and
after a while it can start feeling nasty and passive-aggressive and difficult
to respond to. Or be around.

------
whatshisface
Hidden beneath the ridiculous claims and the n=3 studies, there's an
observation of something most of us know: if you treat people like they're
going to steal something, they'll pick up on the idea that a lot of other
people must have thought stealing was a good idea, and steal a little
themselves. What I really want to know is, do infantilizing school and college
programs reduce or increase responsible behavior?

------
jl2718
The famous Jim Rohn quote: “you are the average of the 5 people you spend the
most time with” was once clarified to me by a psychologist as “you become what
the 5 people closest to you think you are”.

------
api
I had a related thought a while back: that maybe our extreme political
cynicism is actually fueling a culture of corruption. If you're guilty until
proven innocent why bother?

~~~
jamiek88
That’s the entire plan and point of the propaganda we’ve been under.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-undermine-west-
democra...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-undermine-west-
democracies-2016-10)

It’s working a treat.

Never before have intelligence agencies had such direct access to populations.

------
Pete_D
Nit: I would be _astonished_ to hear that any recent clinical trial involving
placebos had taken place without all participants knowing that they might be
given one. FDA guidelines on informed consent[0]: "Procedures related solely
to research (for example, protocol-driven versus individualized dosing,
randomized assignment to treatment, blinding of subject and investigator, and
receipt of placebo if the study is placebo-controlled) must be explained. ...
The description should also provide relevant information about any control
used in the study. For example, whether the control is a medically recognized
standard of care or is a placebo (including an explanation of what a placebo
is)." Searching the web for "placebo IRB" turns up more detailed institutional
guidelines; UCI's is one of the most in-depth[1].

I believe this is relevant because the author's comparison of placebos and
virtue labelling hinges on whether or not the practices are deceptive. But the
norms around informed consent mean that using placebos in clinical trials does
not, IMO, involve deception. I'm not sure if there's a comparable mitigation
to make virtue labelling not deceptive (can you imagine handing someone a
consent form saying "I will sometimes lie to you about whether or not I think
you are a good person, for your own good"?)

[0]
[https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm40497...](https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm404975.htm#description)

[1] [https://www.research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research-
prote...](https://www.research.uci.edu/compliance/human-research-
protections/researchers/placebo.html#Protocol)

------
somberi
Tempted to quote Rumi:

"Either seem as you are or be as you seem."

In Turkish:

"Ya olduğun gibi görün ya da göründüğün gibi ol."

------
darkerside
I can't agree with the execution as described. It's manipulative and
dishonest. Instead of squandering virtuous labels at every opportunity, do
something much simpler and more genuine. Simply notice when people do
something good, or right. With time, they'll internalize that feedback, and I
believe the positive effects will last longer because the recipients make the
connection to an actual action they have taken and can sense the authenticity
of the statement in a way that coheres to their actual worldview. Much
different from telling people, "you're honest", when they've done nothing to
indicate it.

~~~
yosito
You're very good at reading the whole article before commenting. ;)

------
Jarwain
It's the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy!

I feel like Horoscopes and Zodiac signs do this, in a sense. To prescribe
traits to an individual based on some quality out of their control, like their
birth date, and have those traits told to them repeatedly throughout their
lifetime (if they're surrounded by the kind of people who would do so), that
individual would grow Into those traits

~~~
jeffdavis
I've always wondered how much your birthday does matter. There are fundamental
reasons, like seasonal changes that may directly or indirectly impact
development. And there are also arbitrary cutoffs for things like school.

~~~
benji-york
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101251.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101251.htm)

------
Sean1708
> In the process the doctor does her best to come across as medically
> authoritative and confident, so that the participants believe they are
> getting an effective drug treatment. Otherwise the placebo won’t work.

I was always under the impression that placebos worked even when patients new
that they were getting placebos, is this not true?

~~~
verbify
Presumably the placebo effect is stronger when patients do not realise they
are getting placebos.

~~~
carapace
Nope. There is no magic in the word "placebo". Nor in the fake pills. The
effect is solely due to "set and setting" establishing belief. The "placebo
effect" is on a spectrum with hypnosis. It has nothing to do with the actual
pill or injection whatsoever, those are just _props_ , like in theater.

(Sorry to badger the point, it just seems so under-appreciated and
misunderstood.)

~~~
verbify
Do you have studies to back up the claim that placebo is binary and not a
spectrum?

~~~
carapace
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "binary"?

In any case, I'm saying that the so-called "Placebo Effect" is activated by
the patient's belief that they will heal, which is created by the "story" told
and acted out by the people around them. The word "placebo" has no inherent
effect, nor does the pill, it's all a kind of _hypnotic suggestion_ that
activates a somewhat mysterious ability of people to heal themselves.

The GP said, "Presumably the placebo effect is stronger when patients do not
realise they are getting placebos."

This reflects a common misconception, usually born out of the "fact" that
"fake pills can't cure you".

But it turns out that this "fact" in, in fact, not true. _Fake pills can cure
some people some of the time._ This fact is as established as a fact can be,
over and over again, in thousands of studies and cases.

Imagine someone with an illness and who has never heard the word "placebo" or
anything about it. Maybe you two are stuck on a deserted island. The point is,
you can pick up a bit of bark or shell or a pebble or something, wave your
hand over it and mumble some magic words, and tell them _with total
conviction_ that it has a good chance of curing them... _because it 's true._

So my first point is that it doesn't directly matter whether people know
they're getting a fake pill or not, it depends on what they've been led to
believe about the efficacy of fake pills. Anything that lends credibility
(ability to believe) to the possibility of healing for the patient can be
expected to "amplify" the "effect".

My second point, which I think you're asking about, is that the whole healing
is done by the "story" engendering belief which then somehow activates the
patient's own ability to heal, and that this is a kind of hypnosis, or at
least related to hypnosis. Because, again, there's no magic in the word
"placebo" either to strengthen or weaken the "placebo effect" and "fake pills
can't cure you". Right? So it has to be "all in your head".

I mean what would you call it if I told you a story and gave you a piece of
candy and your illness cured itself? Is that not hypnosis?

There's a joke people tell to disparage "alternative medicine": If it works,
it's just called "medicine".

My third point is that this should happen for the "Placebo Effect"! The power
of _theater_ \-- of storytelling and the mind --to engage healing should form
a third pillar of medicine along with Biochemistry and Surgery.

~~~
verbify
> The power of theater-- of storytelling and the mind --to engage healing
> should form a third pillar of medicine along with Biochemistry and Surgery.

Let's say hypothetically that two patients received this 'theater treatment'
\- but one had an amazing actor and the other had a mediocre actor. The
amazing actor convinced Patient A of the efficacy of the treatment better than
Patient B.

If you believe that 'theater treatment' or the placebo effect is binary then
it doesn't matter how good the actors are, and therefore they will get better
at the same rate. If you believe 'theater treatment' isn't binary, then the
more the person believes in the treatment, the faster their condition will
improve. That's what I mean by binary vs a spectrum.

There's evidence that placebo treatments aren't binary - e.g. placebo
injections work better than pills -
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0067485).

Therefore, with reference to my original statement 'Presumably the placebo
effect is stronger when patients do not realise they are getting placebos'. In
both cases, the placebo effect will work, however it will work better if the
theater is more convincing - and it's more convincing when they aren't told
it's sugar pills.

------
mirimir
Damn, "virtue labeling". I guess that this is a riff on "virtue signaling".
But seriously, there's no dishonesty involved if you simply acknowledge people
for being honest etc. It is true, on the other hand, that only people who are
thinking about lying will say that you can trust them.

~~~
phyzome
It's not a riff on it, they just have the same word in them.

~~~
mirimir
It's more than just the same word. It's the same word, used in the same ironic
and mocking way.

~~~
phyzome
What? No. Both of these come out of the academic literature.

People on some parts of the internet _use_ the term "virtue signaling" in a
mocking way. I haven't seen "virtue labeling" used that way.

------
tw1010
Crazy shit happens when you expose the rules of the social game we're all
playing.

------
CookieMon
I have heard the Nobel Peace Prize awards explained this way - more an attempt
to sway than to congratulate.

------
phyller
Every time I open a nautil.us page it opens a bunch of processes that max out
several cores on my CPU and eventually my cooling fans boost up to maximum.
Hmmmm.

I should email them and tell them that they are a respectable and responsible
company that ensures they nor their employees nor their advertisers would ever
run unnecessary code on their visitor's machines.

------
carapace
What a weird, almost sociopathic article. If you are nice to people and
encourage niceness they tend to act nicer. Reifying this blindingly simple
thought into "virtue labeling" isn't scientific, it's scientism. The author is
advocating insincerity and _deception_ as a way to promote good character.
This sort of neurotic thinking always has such obviously absurd
contradictions.

Insincerity is in contradiction to good character, and attempting to foster
good character in others by deliberately lying to them is obviously
hypocritical and foolish.

Virtue is a greater solvent than water. You can always find a way to
_honestly_ encourage better character in others, if only you start with
yourself. (Someone once hugged Stalin and he _cried_. Stalin! He said
something like, "You're the only one who has treated me like a human being."
It didn't stop him doing what he did, but my point is even he was frail before
virtue.)

------
Mikhail_Edoshin
In 1950s, I think, there were extensive research about behavior and how it
changes in response to external influences, run chiefly by F. B. Skinner. The
overall conclusion of that was that punishing the undesirable behavior does
not work; that is, it will likely change the behavior, but not in the desired
way. The only reliable way to change the behavior was to reward the desirable
behavior; there's also some details on how to dispense the rewards (first
regularly and then over irregular intervals). Skinner even wrote an utopian-
genre book _Walden Two_ about the future society that engineers its own
culture using behaviorist method. (For example, quite a few diseases can be
prevented or detected early simply by undergoing regular medical observations;
yet not that many people do this regularly. What if we could change our
culture to shape the desired behavior? Wouldn't it result in much more
efficient health maintenance?)

For quite some time I regarded this as a humanist approach, but then I changed
my mind and consider rewards used in this way not much different from
punishments. Even if you don't try to use it manipulatively (which is
obviously evil) but actually care about another person, it's still too
dangerous and, I believe, eventually detrimental to the person's well-being.
Besides, it's very easy to deceive yourself that you're not trying to
manipulate while you actually are.

Consider that, for example, many video games follow the Skinner's model to the
letter: they reward the desired behavior (playing) by dispensing some virtual
rewards from time to time. Not regularly, so it's not boring, but often enough
so that you get the boost and continue; and from time to time they give
"better" rewards (more rare or in exchange to a number of smaller ones, so
they look subjectively more expensive). It's easy to see people addicted to
these games.

------
bitwize
I imagined Retsuko calling Mr. Ton "honest", and he became the shiny-eyed,
smiling Ton everyone is scared of.

~~~
Jarwain
Reminded me of the end of Kubo and the Two Strings, where the humanized
antagonist is bestowed virtues that he then embodies

------
musgrove
Why is this person so worried about manipulating other people to be "virtuous"
in his eyes? Clean your own house first, the community will thank you for it.

