> The author is the one who moved the goalposts ...biztos was correct to call it out. Yes, there's an extra word in there. I think you're both missing the poin

> The author is the one who moved the goalposts ...biztos was correct to call it out. Yes, there's an extra word in there. I think you're both missing the point. It wouldn't be interesting or valuable for Horowitz to change his honesty benchmark half way through the opening paragraph. He even includes the word "else" in there, reinforcing the equity of the two measures. So, assuming he's not changing his honesty benchmark... nor is Horowitz likely to believe that each individual reader is objectively the only honest person in their network (or one of few). There isn't even any reason to believe the reader is above average in their honesty. That really just leaves one reasonable interpretation in my mind; the point that humans are subjectively more likely to view ourselves as honest compared to others. Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but there's plenty of evidence for similar cognitive biases. But yeah, I don't think this article is Shakespeare.