17 ms·

Eh, without any qualifying circumstances I think you have to be pretty naive to make a positive judgment in this type of circumstance. Kim got triaged out of a

Eh, without any qualifying circumstances I think you have to be pretty naive to make a positive judgment in this type of circumstance. Kim got triaged out of a social gathering, other people were given tickets instead. While there could be other motivates, when this happens in general you take the friends you really like and cut people you like less. Is it the end of the world? No but it's a reliable signal about where you stand socially.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The concert example was was taken out of context. The paper used it in a section about people believing a specific, unlikely alternative explanation in the face of contradictory evidence of intent. > People can believe something to be true because it “feels” that way. To illustrate, please read the following passages > B.Ted’s boss told him that his performance at the company has been good. Yet, Ted wonders if he could have done better. In fact, he feels like a failure. Consequently, he starts to believe he is a failure The point isn't about whether or not the statements are 100% factually true. The point is that some people will discard the statements entirely and substitute their own worst-case alternative explanation, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. If you're focusing on the statements, you're missing the point of the paper. The point is about assuming the worst in the face of uncertainty.
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  What contradictory evidence is provided in the sample? It doesn't say that they drew lots. As the statement is presented it only sates that a group of people told one person they can't come. The number of tickets does not by itself justify why this particular person isn't going. With such a lack of evidence we could say the reason is unknown, intent is an unknown quantity, but that isn't the desired reasoning because the very fact of the unknowns implies ill intent as a possibility, which is not charitable, therefore the only implied correct position to hold is the actively non-negative one.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    You’re missing the point of the example: The authors deliberate left the ground truth as vague but provided a not-100% but otherwise good faith explanation of one interpretation. Then the listener discarded the explanation and inserted their own worst-case explanation instead. Inserting the worst-case explanation as the certain explanation is the cognitive distortion the paper is talking about. The point isn’t that ill intent is impossible. The point is that it’s a mistake to be certain about the worst interpretation in the face of uncertainty.
    - mrow84 5y ago
      Isn’t the explanation incomplete? It explains why someone couldn’t come, but it doesn’t explain why Kim in particular couldn’t come. Therefore, Kim must contend both with the outcome (that she couldn’t come), and with the fact that the selection process was hidden from her. The concealment creates the bias towards negativity imo, in the absence of other information.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      You’re missing the point of the example: The authors deliberate left the ground truth as vague but provided a not-100% but otherwise good faith explanation of one interpretation. The authors provided a world view and pathologized those who didn't follow that world view.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        This sounds a lot like the 'catastrophizing' that depression often causes, which hurts people and puts them into downward cycles of depression.
        tux3 5y ago
        Incidentally, if GP is worried about pathologizing, this may not be the answer most likely to change their mind.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  The is another example that is missing context. Both statements can be true. Bob might have done a good enough job for the boss, but not for Bob. Maybe Bob needs to realize he doesn't need to strive for perfection. And if the boss is happy, then great. On the other hand maybe Bob could have done better. And thus getting a larger bonus or something

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The concert example was was taken out of context. The paper used it in a section about people believing a specific, unlikely alternative explanation in the face of contradictory evidence of intent. > People can believe something to be true because it “feels” that way. To illustrate, please read the following passages > B.Ted’s boss told him that his performance at the company has been good. Yet, Ted wonders if he could have done better. In fact, he feels like a failure. Consequently, he starts to believe he is a failure The point isn't about whether or not the statements are 100% factually true. The point is that some people will discard the statements entirely and substitute their own worst-case alternative explanation, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. If you're focusing on the statements, you're missing the point of the paper. The point is about assuming the worst in the face of uncertainty.

apocalypstyx 5y ago
What contradictory evidence is provided in the sample? It doesn't say that they drew lots. As the statement is presented it only sates that a group of people told one person they can't come. The number of tickets does not by itself justify why this particular person isn't going. With such a lack of evidence we could say the reason is unknown, intent is an unknown quantity, but that isn't the desired reasoning because the very fact of the unknowns implies ill intent as a possibility, which is not charitable, therefore the only implied correct position to hold is the actively non-negative one.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  You’re missing the point of the example: The authors deliberate left the ground truth as vague but provided a not-100% but otherwise good faith explanation of one interpretation. Then the listener discarded the explanation and inserted their own worst-case explanation instead. Inserting the worst-case explanation as the certain explanation is the cognitive distortion the paper is talking about. The point isn’t that ill intent is impossible. The point is that it’s a mistake to be certain about the worst interpretation in the face of uncertainty.
  - mrow84 5y ago
    Isn’t the explanation incomplete? It explains why someone couldn’t come, but it doesn’t explain why Kim in particular couldn’t come. Therefore, Kim must contend both with the outcome (that she couldn’t come), and with the fact that the selection process was hidden from her. The concealment creates the bias towards negativity imo, in the absence of other information.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    You’re missing the point of the example: The authors deliberate left the ground truth as vague but provided a not-100% but otherwise good faith explanation of one interpretation. The authors provided a world view and pathologized those who didn't follow that world view.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      This sounds a lot like the 'catastrophizing' that depression often causes, which hurts people and puts them into downward cycles of depression.
      - tux3 5y ago
        Incidentally, if GP is worried about pathologizing, this may not be the answer most likely to change their mind.
chrismcb 5y ago
The is another example that is missing context. Both statements can be true. Bob might have done a good enough job for the boss, but not for Bob. Maybe Bob needs to realize he doesn't need to strive for perfection. And if the boss is happy, then great. On the other hand maybe Bob could have done better. And thus getting a larger bonus or something