Contra the signaling benefit of alcohol
You are probably not a Japanese businessman
I often passionately rant against psychoactive substances, including alcohol, arguing that a person should learn to control their behavior without the need for substances, and that drugs risk altering your values and perception of reality in a dangerous way. I will not elaborate on these views in this post, but instead present what I’ve found to be the best pro-alcohol argument so far, and my response.
The signaling argument for alcohol
By drinking alcohol in a group, you are not only becoming more disinhibited, but also credibly signaling that you are disinhibited (and not pretending/secretly hiding something). This allows for interactions that would otherwise not be possible if there was suspicion that someone was “playing 4D chess”/too mentally capable/holding back information/trying to deceive.
The stereotypical scenario I have in my head is a group of usually very formal and inhibited Japanese businessmen going out and drinking to excess before negotiating a deal.
Why the signaling argument does not justify your drinking
I have heard this argument be used to justify drinking at parties and social gatherings. However in these situations the purported benefits (as described by the drinkers) no longer come from the mutual understanding that everyone is under the influence. The signaling benefit mostly occurs in adversarial situations where others may suspect you of deception. Parties or gatherings with friends are not (and should not be) sufficiently adversarial to warrant such an expensive signaling strategy. Instead, the benefits actually come from:
The direct disinhibition effect: you are able to engage in activities you’d otherwise be too afraid to, for instance flirting.
Plausible deniability for your behavior: you can later claim that you did one or another thing because you were drunk.
These benefits are fake. For (1) you can just become less cowardly. For (2) you can either avoid doing things you later regret, own your actions like a virtuous person (in the long run people will probably think higher of you if you do this), or make an alternative reasonable excuse like “I was tired”.
I don't drink regularly, but sometimes at parties I get quite drunk and it's fun. I don't need alcohol to flirt or talk to people, but being drunk is a different experience. It's a warm, pleasant, things seem like funny and easier.
To me the strong version of argument seems to also support "why do you eat tasty food"? Can't you just learn to appreciate less tasty food? I mean sure, but where does that argument stop?
In reality, we probably agree, I think alcohol in most situations is not what I want and indeed I can act how I want in situations without alcohol. I don't drink alcohol to become less inhibited.