4 ms·

Why should it matter? I mean, if somebody tells me that they are intimate with the president, if they want to con me, or are troubled with mental illness, shou

Why should it matter? I mean, if somebody tells me that they are intimate with the president, if they want to con me, or are troubled with mental illness, shouldn’t make a difference on the judgment of how trustable are their statements.

johncolanduoni 5y ago
Are there medications you can take to make you drastically less likely to try to con people?
chrsig 5y ago
Because we as a society have determined that intent matters -- which is why we have the concept of manslaughter vs murder. It's a hard thing to accept, but if you're wronged by someone in a state of psychosis, there is no true malice. Does it change everything? Certainly not. Change in trust in particular is a hard thing to determine here. You should trust that they're experiencing what they say they are. You should not trust that their statements are factual. Change in response? It's the difference between if you should seek to get them help or muster some compassion versus whatever you might do if it was a healthy person acting out of malice. That being said, mentally ill people can still be assholes, and can still act out of malice. So there's that. And that makes situations even more difficult to figure out.
- licebmi__at__ 5y ago
  I’m not talking about behavior nor judgment of him as a person, I know morality tends to equate this, but I don’t consider it to be the case. I just mean that I wouldn’t trust somebody who tends to lie because of mental illness, the same way I wouldn’t trust somebody without preparation to talk about theoretical physics.
  - johncolanduoni 5y ago
    The lies of a con man or an uninformed person are generally pretty distinguishable from the lies of a psychotic or manic person, especially in long form writing (isolated tweets are another matter). And for the type of writing deBoer does, which is quite well-sourced whenever he is making factual claims, I think dismissing it because he has a mental illness is kind of silly. Honestly I’ll take a bias of disorganized thought that is likely to be easier to detect over an ideologically motivated bias any day, and we certainly don’t prevent anyone from being published for the latter.
unreal37 5y ago
Generally, people are judged based on the "facts of the case". If I stole an iPhone from the Apple Store, you can call me a thief and demand I spend 6 months in jail. But if a single mother stole a loaf of bread from a store because their kids were starving and going to die without food, that same punishment might be considered unjust. Context matters. The facts matter. Not just, "did you do this or not".

johncolanduoni 5y ago

Are there medications you can take to make you drastically less likely to try to con people?

chrsig 5y ago

Because we as a society have determined that intent matters -- which is why we have the concept of manslaughter vs murder. It's a hard thing to accept, but if you're wronged by someone in a state of psychosis, there is no true malice. Does it change everything? Certainly not. Change in trust in particular is a hard thing to determine here. You should trust that they're experiencing what they say they are. You should not trust that their statements are factual. Change in response? It's the difference between if you should seek to get them help or muster some compassion versus whatever you might do if it was a healthy person acting out of malice. That being said, mentally ill people can still be assholes, and can still act out of malice. So there's that. And that makes situations even more difficult to figure out.

licebmi__at__ 5y ago
I’m not talking about behavior nor judgment of him as a person, I know morality tends to equate this, but I don’t consider it to be the case. I just mean that I wouldn’t trust somebody who tends to lie because of mental illness, the same way I wouldn’t trust somebody without preparation to talk about theoretical physics.
- johncolanduoni 5y ago
  The lies of a con man or an uninformed person are generally pretty distinguishable from the lies of a psychotic or manic person, especially in long form writing (isolated tweets are another matter). And for the type of writing deBoer does, which is quite well-sourced whenever he is making factual claims, I think dismissing it because he has a mental illness is kind of silly. Honestly I’ll take a bias of disorganized thought that is likely to be easier to detect over an ideologically motivated bias any day, and we certainly don’t prevent anyone from being published for the latter.

unreal37 5y ago

Generally, people are judged based on the "facts of the case". If I stole an iPhone from the Apple Store, you can call me a thief and demand I spend 6 months in jail. But if a single mother stole a loaf of bread from a store because their kids were starving and going to die without food, that same punishment might be considered unjust. Context matters. The facts matter. Not just, "did you do this or not".