Upon reading the Time article, I immediately assumed that whoever the article was talking about did other creepy things. Assuming the Time article did not misrepresent things hugely, the idea that the person (who we now know is Owen) has not done any other creepy things did not even cross my mind. I feel like this is an extremely normal, even boring, within-context reading.
On the other hand, when you said that “Context that makes Owen look worse” includes “Owen self-admittedly went on to make other inappropriate comments to people on 4 other occasions” this implies to me that your prior belief before reading Owen’s statement was that whoever the Time article was referring to did not do other bad things, or at least did less bad things than say 4 other inappropriate comments of similar magnitude.
Because your reading appears to have differed so much from my own, I’m remarking on how this seems like a pretty odd prior to have, from my perspective.
We don’t actually know that there were only 4 other incidents. The only evidence we have for that is that Owen said so, and that other incidents have not currently come to light. We only know that there were at least 4 other incidents. So they’ve confessed to 5 more incidences than I expected them to.
I definitely agree that there might be other incidents that come to light. I still disagree that the presence of at least 5 incidents is much of an update that Time is underselling things.
Let me be more explicit:
Upon reading the Time article, I immediately assumed that whoever the article was talking about did other creepy things. Assuming the Time article did not misrepresent things hugely, the idea that the person (who we now know is Owen) has not done any other creepy things did not even cross my mind. I feel like this is an extremely normal, even boring, within-context reading.
On the other hand, when you said that “Context that makes Owen look worse” includes “Owen self-admittedly went on to make other inappropriate comments to people on 4 other occasions” this implies to me that your prior belief before reading Owen’s statement was that whoever the Time article was referring to did not do other bad things, or at least did less bad things than say 4 other inappropriate comments of similar magnitude.
Because your reading appears to have differed so much from my own, I’m remarking on how this seems like a pretty odd prior to have, from my perspective.
We don’t actually know that there were only 4 other incidents. The only evidence we have for that is that Owen said so, and that other incidents have not currently come to light. We only know that there were at least 4 other incidents. So they’ve confessed to 5 more incidences than I expected them to.
I definitely agree that there might be other incidents that come to light. I still disagree that the presence of at least 5 incidents is much of an update that Time is underselling things.