50 ms·
When a known liar says X, it means they've calculated that saying X is a good move in whatever game they're playing. This tells us little about whether X is the
by abecedarius 9y ago
When a known liar says X, it means they've calculated that saying X is a good move in whatever game they're playing. This tells us little about whether X is the case. I mean, if they've since made a credible effort to restore their reputation somehow, we may start to give their pronouncements some direct weight in our own models of the world, but until then, why would you? This is beside any matter of morality.
- anigbrowl 9y agoBecause it would be irrational to assume that they lie all the time. You are right that they've calculated it to be a good move, but good moves are not universally applicable. You should definitely give lower weight to the statements of an actor with a record of being untruthful - we could get into discussing how Clapper is no longer at the NSA and that equating the NSA with his statements to Congress is a fallacy of composition, but let's go with the idea that the NSA as an institution is rather untrustworthy. What I'm arguing against is reflexively reducing that weight to zero, which I claim is irrational. Morality is something that is important in decision-making, but extremely distracting in analysis, so I ignore it when trying to figure out what people are doing or whether they're truthful.