For me it works like this: Before reading this HN item, my understanding was that 'Loss aversion' was very likely to be correct - let's say 98%. After reading t

For me it works like this: Before reading this HN item, my understanding was that 'Loss aversion' was very likely to be correct - let's say 98%. After reading the headline and a few comments I lower the 'chance of correctness' a little to say 93%. Two points on this approach: 1. My assessment lies on a gradient rather than a simple true/false. 2. I rarely read the source evidence - my assessment relies mostly on the assessment of others.