I like this idea of curiosity-killing concept. Signaling is another example. If someone likes/believes/does something you don't understand, they're just signaling.
People might use it that way, but the original idea of signaling is when people care about publicly displaying their belief in a thing. That’s an operable definition that’s independent of that thing’s merits.
The fact signalling is independent of a thing's merits is part of the reason it's such a thought-terminating cliché.
If someone asks why so many young dancers learn ballet, I can say "signalling" and consider the question answered without having to engage with the availability of instruction, tradition, structure and organisation, how ballet differs from other forms of dance, or really engage in any detailed exploration of the subject at all.
I mean it's also completely worthless as a concept outside of being a thought-terminating cliche. Unless the user is stating they have psychic abilities and can ascertain with certainty someone is signaling of course, but that's not particularly likely. Outside of that, it's a completely non-falsifiable accusation that derails an argument into "you're just saying what you think you should say, not what you actually think" which is, again, completely unknowable with any certainty and also is completely irrelevant to whether the thing in question is good to be saying or not.
Whether you actually believe, for example, a subjugated group in society should have all the rights and freedoms of it's majority, or simply believe saying that will net you social capital, doesn't change whether they do or not, and also doesn't change that such a message is probably, on balance, good to have repeatedly broadcast even if the speaker doesn't believe it with their heart and soul.
I don't really ever hear that said in that scenario. There are many things people do that I don't understand. But there is also something people do that I do understand, and that thing is signalling.
