Are you referring to the part of the post called “Sharing Information on Ben Pace” when you say “attempted smear of Ben in retaliation for writing the post”? If so, I don’t interpret that section the way you might because (from my perspective) it seemed clear that it was trying to make a point about how easy it is to make allegations sound bad when they are flimsy. Especially since the section says:
“However, this is completely unfair to Ben. It’s written in the style of a hit piece. And I believe you should not update much on Ben’s character from this.
[...list of reasons why you shouldn’t update given...]
I’m not yet worried about these “patterns” about Ben because I don’t know if they are patterns. I haven’t heard his side. And I refuse to pass judgment on someone without hearing their side”
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.
Are you referring to the part of the post called “Sharing Information on Ben Pace” when you say “attempted smear of Ben in retaliation for writing the post”? If so, I don’t interpret that section the way you might because (from my perspective) it seemed clear that it was trying to make a point about how easy it is to make allegations sound bad when they are flimsy. Especially since the section says:
“However, this is completely unfair to Ben. It’s written in the style of a hit piece. And I believe you should not update much on Ben’s character from this.
[...list of reasons why you shouldn’t update given...]
I’m not yet worried about these “patterns” about Ben because I don’t know if they are patterns. I haven’t heard his side. And I refuse to pass judgment on someone without hearing their side”
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.