I think the thing people are taking issue with is that Ben was used as the particular example to illustrate this—if there was no desire to create a negative impression of him, why was a different or even anonymous example used? You can say ‘here is X information—but don’t treat it as information’, and know that it’s very unlikely people would update 0.0% on the information. I think this seems so self-evident to people that they’re not explaining why they’re not taking the disclaimer at face value.
I also agree with other commenters that it’s actually irrational to update 0.0% on the information anyway.
Another confusing this is that in the comments here Kat says she believes what the person told her—so that is passing judgement on Ben without getting his side. It may not be updating at all on his broader personality (which again seems irrational) but it is passing judgement on his actions in that incident, and without hearing his side of the incident.
I didn’t interpret the original post as saying you should update 0%, just that you should update only a very small amount because it’s flimsy and sloppily reported on evidence.
I think the thing people are taking issue with is that Ben was used as the particular example to illustrate this—if there was no desire to create a negative impression of him, why was a different or even anonymous example used? You can say ‘here is X information—but don’t treat it as information’, and know that it’s very unlikely people would update 0.0% on the information. I think this seems so self-evident to people that they’re not explaining why they’re not taking the disclaimer at face value.
I also agree with other commenters that it’s actually irrational to update 0.0% on the information anyway.
Another confusing this is that in the comments here Kat says she believes what the person told her—so that is passing judgement on Ben without getting his side. It may not be updating at all on his broader personality (which again seems irrational) but it is passing judgement on his actions in that incident, and without hearing his side of the incident.
I didn’t interpret the original post as saying you should update 0%, just that you should update only a very small amount because it’s flimsy and sloppily reported on evidence.