这段文字将昂贵信号塑造成一种有意的权衡：行为主体接受可见的低效率来传达隐藏的质量、投入或警觉性，这与猎物在要付出即时能量和暴露成本时仍会“跳跃炫耀”相呼应。放在组织场景中，同样的逻辑预示着，随着信号成本从接近于零（快速短信/邮件）上升到高摩擦行为（如手写便条），真诚度感知会更强。

关于会议行为，文中唯一明确的实证趋势来自曹汉城及其合作者：当会议是远程、参会人数更多、且时长更久时，多任务处理会增加。与此同时，几乎每场会议都出现看手机、发消息和查邮件，因此“全神贯注”虽常常低效，却作为投入度信号而被保留。

在 AI 相关信号上，最硬的数字是一封手写推荐信约需 45 分钟，这一时间燃烧本身被定义为“在乎”的可量化代价。招聘研究还报告了方向性差异：用 AI 评估预录视频面试会被解读为雇主对人不够重视，而由人来评估同类视频则对组织形象更有利。

The passage frames costly signalling as an intentional tradeoff: agents accept visible inefficiency to convey hidden quality, commitment, or awareness, mirroring prey stotting despite immediate energy and exposure costs. In organisational settings, the same logic predicts stronger perceived sincerity when signal cost rises from near-zero (a quick text/email) to high-friction acts such as handwritten notes.

For meeting behavior, the text’s only explicit empirical trend comes from research by Hancheng Cao and co-authors: multitasking increases when meetings are remote, when attendance is larger, and when duration is longer. At the same time, phone checking, messaging, and email monitoring occur in almost every gathering, so full attention often remains as an inefficient but retained commitment signal.

In AI-mediated signalling, the hardest number is that a handwritten recommendation letter takes about 45 minutes, and that time burn is itself defined as a measurable cost of caring. Recruitment evidence also reports a directional split: using AI to evaluate pre-recorded video interviews is read as lower employer concern for people, while human evaluation of the same videos is viewed as better for organisational image.

Source: The case for workplace inefficiency

Subtitle: Stop optimising. Start pronking

Dateline: 2月 19, 2026 04:18 上午