Interesting take. I think, like most things (careers/internships, math competitions, universities, etc.):
1. There's a strong core group that wants ___ simply for its own sake. For math competitions, these are the people that are truly passionate about math. For universities, these are the students that want to be around other intellectually curious/motivated/ambitious student, do cutting-edge research, or prepare themselves for a max-impact career. For skiing, I think it's the risk-taking/adventure, the access to natural beauty, and the joy of seeing yourself demonstrably improve at something.
2. An external group that has found what it signals to be particularly attractive and thus want to signal that to others (want to signal intelligence for math comps and universities, and what you have mentioned above for skiing).
Because group (2) is generally a side-effect of group (1), I think there must be a continuous stream of people in group (1) in order for group (2) to exist. So I don't disagree, but I think there's a sizable group (1) that is not aware that it has any "signal" to begin with.
I mostly agree with you, there's certainly people who are interested in skiing mainly for the immediate benefits and would talk about it a lot even if it didn't have the secondary signaling benefits. But I don't think that your groups 1 and 2 are entirely separate - if you consider someone who is genuinely passionate about both skiing and playing video games, I think they're going to talk about skiing more because talking about skiing has more social benefits than talking about video games.
In other words, I don't think there's a large population of people in group 2 for skiing, but I do think that the people in group 1 get not only the intrinsic benefits but also the social benefits. Even if they're not directly aware of the social benefits, it would explain why people with multiple hobbies including skiing tend to talk a lot about skiing specifically.
I think video gaming is an apt comparison, because it—like skiing—is a "high-dopamine" activity for a variety of people. However, it isn't supply-constrained. An interesting thought experiment to illustrate this could be the following:
Imagine a world in which playing video games requires finding a few free friends, driving three hours both ways through rugged terrain, buying a season pass months in advance, buying/renting expensive equipment, maybe booking a place to stay, waking up early, booking parking, etc. It's fair to imagine people discussing their video gaming trips to the same extent as people discuss skiing because it requires significantly more planning, thinking, and commitment than hitting up a discord chat, just as people discuss their retreat or spring break plans. It's also fair to argue that, in this world, video gamers chat about their video game trips because there is a stronger positive signal associated with it. They are go-getters who are determined to make their plans reality; they also have disposable income and free time. I would argue it's hard to know which is the more fair explanation.
Yeah, I think the large amount of planning required is also a factor - you feel like you're more invested in the ski trip and therefore need to make sure that you like it. That said, there are other things that might require similar amounts of planning ability - being a moderator in a niche online community, or hosting a Magic: The Gathering tournament - which people wouldn't talk about as much because even though you might feel really invested in the thing you spent a lot of time doing, it doesn't have as many of the social benefits. I think in your hypothetical world, people would sometimes talk about their video gaming trips, but I don't think it would be to the same extent as skiing trips because it doesn't convey the physical fitness or risk tolerance aspects.
Interesting take. I think, like most things (careers/internships, math competitions, universities, etc.):
1. There's a strong core group that wants ___ simply for its own sake. For math competitions, these are the people that are truly passionate about math. For universities, these are the students that want to be around other intellectually curious/motivated/ambitious student, do cutting-edge research, or prepare themselves for a max-impact career. For skiing, I think it's the risk-taking/adventure, the access to natural beauty, and the joy of seeing yourself demonstrably improve at something.
2. An external group that has found what it signals to be particularly attractive and thus want to signal that to others (want to signal intelligence for math comps and universities, and what you have mentioned above for skiing).
Because group (2) is generally a side-effect of group (1), I think there must be a continuous stream of people in group (1) in order for group (2) to exist. So I don't disagree, but I think there's a sizable group (1) that is not aware that it has any "signal" to begin with.
I mostly agree with you, there's certainly people who are interested in skiing mainly for the immediate benefits and would talk about it a lot even if it didn't have the secondary signaling benefits. But I don't think that your groups 1 and 2 are entirely separate - if you consider someone who is genuinely passionate about both skiing and playing video games, I think they're going to talk about skiing more because talking about skiing has more social benefits than talking about video games.
In other words, I don't think there's a large population of people in group 2 for skiing, but I do think that the people in group 1 get not only the intrinsic benefits but also the social benefits. Even if they're not directly aware of the social benefits, it would explain why people with multiple hobbies including skiing tend to talk a lot about skiing specifically.
Sure, that's fair.
I think video gaming is an apt comparison, because it—like skiing—is a "high-dopamine" activity for a variety of people. However, it isn't supply-constrained. An interesting thought experiment to illustrate this could be the following:
Imagine a world in which playing video games requires finding a few free friends, driving three hours both ways through rugged terrain, buying a season pass months in advance, buying/renting expensive equipment, maybe booking a place to stay, waking up early, booking parking, etc. It's fair to imagine people discussing their video gaming trips to the same extent as people discuss skiing because it requires significantly more planning, thinking, and commitment than hitting up a discord chat, just as people discuss their retreat or spring break plans. It's also fair to argue that, in this world, video gamers chat about their video game trips because there is a stronger positive signal associated with it. They are go-getters who are determined to make their plans reality; they also have disposable income and free time. I would argue it's hard to know which is the more fair explanation.
Yeah, I think the large amount of planning required is also a factor - you feel like you're more invested in the ski trip and therefore need to make sure that you like it. That said, there are other things that might require similar amounts of planning ability - being a moderator in a niche online community, or hosting a Magic: The Gathering tournament - which people wouldn't talk about as much because even though you might feel really invested in the thing you spent a lot of time doing, it doesn't have as many of the social benefits. I think in your hypothetical world, people would sometimes talk about their video gaming trips, but I don't think it would be to the same extent as skiing trips because it doesn't convey the physical fitness or risk tolerance aspects.