Sometimes we use comparisons or even adjectives in a way I think is accidentally misleading. We usually intuit the correct meaning, but not always so I think it is worth being aware of. I have especially noticed doing it to myself and am making an effort to not do it anymore because it is a kind of self deception.
Comparing X and Y by saying they are similar is sometimes evidence they are actually quite different and that the speaker was trying to bring them together in a way that is not accurate. Same thing in reverse if the claim is that they are very different, it feels like the speaker is trying to create space between the two things à la narcissism of small differences.
This can be used deceptively:
but I think that it is accidental or subconscious more often than not.
Maybe I’m just ragging on hyperbole. Like if your friend says he’s going to introduce you to someone “like Raiman” you probably don’t expect them to be someone that needs to be institutionalized, you probably expect a socially awkward person good at math or something[1].
But that’s kind of my point, we are left to pick up the slack from a non literal expression and it makes things a little messy when you aren’t extremely familiar with your interlocutor or the point of comparison. Some other examples off the top of my head:
Hamburgers are way better than hotdogs -> hamburgers are only slightly better than hotdogs
People that are unhappy with you and then say “I’m fine” or “I don’t want to talk about it” -> in my experience this is extremely strong evidence they are not, in fact, fine and happy to not talk about it
"I’m not going to sugar coat it" is, in a small way, a method of sugar coating it because it gives the listener a brief warning before the bad news and it also signals you are aware it is bad news you may want to sugar coat
“If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Again, in ordinary speech this is a non issue for the most part. But, it can be used for deception and I think it is a powerful form of self deception but noticing it can help you be more honest with yourself.
To keep it general, if you actually make up your mind on a topic, I think you are quite unlikely to roll through the list of reasons you think your side is correct over and over again. I noticed myself doing this with AI safety for a while. I would just have virtual debates in my mind where I took the side of “AI will be safe” and would win and I really don’t think that is what a person who is actually sure of things does. I think this kind of thing applies, to some extent, to the deconversion process where people will have a crisis of faith, then spend time guilty watching atheist content and mentally debunking it, eventually switching to watching compilations of atheists winning arguments, then just live their lives without actually thinking about it because they made up their mind.
You are most often mentally engaging with the arguments the most when you are unsure of them. I would say that if you claim to be sure but are, unprompted, mentally engaging with arguments you should take a step back and ask yourself if you are as sure as you think.
So it’s a bit of a double edged sword. If you don’t notice it, the seemingly strong signal of having a lot of arguments on your side can convince you your side is true when it is not. But if you are aware of it you can use it to more accurately calibrate your opinion or confidence level based on how much you seem to be subconsciously pulling on a thread. This could be one of a few existing things:
Poe’s law
Narcissism of small differences
Me whining about hyperbole
Soldier vs scout mindset
Grice’s maxims and intentional flouting them
But none of those really feel like they are exactly what I mean and each breaks down in certain cases. Maybe what I am thinking of already has a name. Maybe it is a unique cocktail of biases I have mixed up inside me and am projecting onto the world. But until it’s settled I thought it best to put it here in the case anyone has insight or it helps others calibrate better.
Sometimes we use comparisons or even adjectives in a way I think is accidentally misleading. We usually intuit the correct meaning, but not always so I think it is worth being aware of. I have especially noticed doing it to myself and am making an effort to not do it anymore because it is a kind of self deception.
Comparing X and Y by saying they are similar is sometimes evidence they are actually quite different and that the speaker was trying to bring them together in a way that is not accurate. Same thing in reverse if the claim is that they are very different, it feels like the speaker is trying to create space between the two things à la narcissism of small differences.
This can be used deceptively:
but I think that it is accidental or subconscious more often than not.
Maybe I’m just ragging on hyperbole. Like if your friend says he’s going to introduce you to someone “like Raiman” you probably don’t expect them to be someone that needs to be institutionalized, you probably expect a socially awkward person good at math or something[1].
But that’s kind of my point, we are left to pick up the slack from a non literal expression and it makes things a little messy when you aren’t extremely familiar with your interlocutor or the point of comparison. Some other examples off the top of my head:
Again, in ordinary speech this is a non issue for the most part. But, it can be used for deception and I think it is a powerful form of self deception but noticing it can help you be more honest with yourself.
To keep it general, if you actually make up your mind on a topic, I think you are quite unlikely to roll through the list of reasons you think your side is correct over and over again. I noticed myself doing this with AI safety for a while. I would just have virtual debates in my mind where I took the side of “AI will be safe” and would win and I really don’t think that is what a person who is actually sure of things does. I think this kind of thing applies, to some extent, to the deconversion process where people will have a crisis of faith, then spend time guilty watching atheist content and mentally debunking it, eventually switching to watching compilations of atheists winning arguments, then just live their lives without actually thinking about it because they made up their mind.
You are most often mentally engaging with the arguments the most when you are unsure of them. I would say that if you claim to be sure but are, unprompted, mentally engaging with arguments you should take a step back and ask yourself if you are as sure as you think.
So it’s a bit of a double edged sword. If you don’t notice it, the seemingly strong signal of having a lot of arguments on your side can convince you your side is true when it is not. But if you are aware of it you can use it to more accurately calibrate your opinion or confidence level based on how much you seem to be subconsciously pulling on a thread. This could be one of a few existing things:
But none of those really feel like they are exactly what I mean and each breaks down in certain cases. Maybe what I am thinking of already has a name. Maybe it is a unique cocktail of biases I have mixed up inside me and am projecting onto the world. But until it’s settled I thought it best to put it here in the case anyone has insight or it helps others calibrate better.
A completely fictitious example that is not based on my friends or family discussing me