A hypothesis you do not seem to consider is that she did make an attempt at communicating āI made my decision and do not need more of your inputā, and that you did not understand this message.
This hypothesis seems more probable to me than her straightforwardly saying a false thing, as there seems to be multiple similar misunderstandings of the sort between you.
Another misunderstanding example:
he usually did not accept my answers when I gave them but continued to argue with me, either straight up or by insisting I didnāt really understand his argument or was contradicting myself somehow.
It seems to me that this quote points to another similar misunderstanding, and that it was this misunderstanding that lead to a breakdown in communication initially.
Please tell me if Iām missing something. If Iām not, youāre either continuing to be inattentive to the facts, or youāre directly lying.
Iād be happy to share all of our message exchanges with a third party, such as CEA Community Health, or share them publicly, if you agree to that.
You seem to be paying lip service to the āmissing somethingā hypothesis, but framing this as an issue of someone deliberately lying is not cooperative with Holly in the world where you are in fact missing something.
Asking to share messages publicly or showing them to a third party seems to unnecessarily up the stakes. Iām not sure why youāre suggesting that.
I carefully looked through all of our messages (there werenāt too many) a couple of times, because that was pretty surprising and I considered it to be more likely that I donāt remember something than her saying something directly false. But thereās nothing like that and sheās, unfortunately, straightforwardly saying a false thing.
he usually did not accept my answers when I gave them but continued to argue with me, either straight up or by insisting I didnāt really understand his argument or was contradicting myself somehow.
This is also something I couldnāt find any examples of before the protest, no matter how I interpret the messages we have exchanged about her strategy etc.
Iām >99% sure that Iām not missing anything. Included it because itās not a mathematical truth, and because adding āAre you sure? What am I missing, if you are?ā is more polite than just saying āthis is clearly false and we both know it and any third party can verify the falsehood; why are you saying that? Is there some other platform we exchanged messages on, that I somehow totally forgot about?ā. Itās technically possible Iām just blind at something- I can imagine a conceivable universe where Iām wrong about this. But Iām confident sheās saying a straightforwardly false thing. Iād feel good about betting up to $20k at 99:1 odds on this.
Like, āmissing somethingā isnāt a hypothesis with any probability mass, really, Iām including it because it is a part of my epistemic situation and seems nicer to include in the message.
Asking to share messages publicly or showing them to a third party seems to unnecessarily up the stakes. Iām not sure why youāre suggesting that
When someone is confidently saying false things about the contents of the messages we exchanged, it seems reasonable to suggest publishing them or having a third party look at them. Iām not sure how itās āupping the stakesā. Itās a natural thing to do.
It seems to me that youāre not maintaining at least two hypotheses consistent with the data.
A hypothesis you do not seem to consider is that she did make an attempt at communicating āI made my decision and do not need more of your inputā, and that you did not understand this message.
This hypothesis seems more probable to me than her straightforwardly saying a false thing, as there seems to be multiple similar misunderstandings of the sort between you.
Another misunderstanding example:
It seems to me that this quote points to another similar misunderstanding, and that it was this misunderstanding that lead to a breakdown in communication initially.
You seem to be paying lip service to the āmissing somethingā hypothesis, but framing this as an issue of someone deliberately lying is not cooperative with Holly in the world where you are in fact missing something.
Asking to share messages publicly or showing them to a third party seems to unnecessarily up the stakes. Iām not sure why youāre suggesting that.
I carefully looked through all of our messages (there werenāt too many) a couple of times, because that was pretty surprising and I considered it to be more likely that I donāt remember something than her saying something directly false. But thereās nothing like that and sheās, unfortunately, straightforwardly saying a false thing.
This is also something I couldnāt find any examples of before the protest, no matter how I interpret the messages we have exchanged about her strategy etc.
Iām >99% sure that Iām not missing anything. Included it because itās not a mathematical truth, and because adding āAre you sure? What am I missing, if you are?ā is more polite than just saying āthis is clearly false and we both know it and any third party can verify the falsehood; why are you saying that? Is there some other platform we exchanged messages on, that I somehow totally forgot about?ā. Itās technically possible Iām just blind at something- I can imagine a conceivable universe where Iām wrong about this. But Iām confident sheās saying a straightforwardly false thing. Iād feel good about betting up to $20k at 99:1 odds on this.
Like, āmissing somethingā isnāt a hypothesis with any probability mass, really, Iām including it because it is a part of my epistemic situation and seems nicer to include in the message.
When someone is confidently saying false things about the contents of the messages we exchanged, it seems reasonable to suggest publishing them or having a third party look at them. Iām not sure how itās āupping the stakesā. Itās a natural thing to do.