I think a problem here is when people don’t know if someone is being fully honest/transparent/calibrated or using more conventional positive-slanted discourse norms. E.g. a situation where this comes up sometimes is taking and giving references for a job applicant. I think the norm with references is that they should be very positive, and you’re supposed to do downward adjustments on the positivity to figure out what’s going on (e.g. noticing if someone said someone was “reliable” versus “extremely reliable”). If an EA gives a reference for a job applicant using really transparent and calibrated languages, and then the reference-taker doesn’t realize different discourse norms are in use and does their normal downward adjustment, they will end up with a falsely negative picture of the applicant.
Similarly, I think in a community where some people or orgs are fully transparent and honest, and others are using more conventional pitch-like language, there’s a risk of disadvantaging the honest and generally sowing a lot of confusion.
Also, the more everyone expects everyone else to be super honest and transparent, in some ways, the more benefit to the first defector (since people might be more trusting and not suspect they’re being self-promotional).
I think a problem here is when people don’t know if someone is being fully honest/transparent/calibrated or using more conventional positive-slanted discourse norms. E.g. a situation where this comes up sometimes is taking and giving references for a job applicant. I think the norm with references is that they should be very positive, and you’re supposed to do downward adjustments on the positivity to figure out what’s going on (e.g. noticing if someone said someone was “reliable” versus “extremely reliable”). If an EA gives a reference for a job applicant using really transparent and calibrated languages, and then the reference-taker doesn’t realize different discourse norms are in use and does their normal downward adjustment, they will end up with a falsely negative picture of the applicant.
Similarly, I think in a community where some people or orgs are fully transparent and honest, and others are using more conventional pitch-like language, there’s a risk of disadvantaging the honest and generally sowing a lot of confusion.
Also, the more everyone expects everyone else to be super honest and transparent, in some ways, the more benefit to the first defector (since people might be more trusting and not suspect they’re being self-promotional).