5 ms·

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

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.
      - Natsu 5y ago
        The thing is, in my observations, depression pushes people into endless sets of no win conditions by punishing them for not obeying ever more restrictive and absurd rules. I don't want to claim what is/isn't a disease, but it's pretty obvious that some thought patterns hurt people a lot once you understand a little about how they work and get people to contort their lives around them. Getting out of that looks more like getting rid of the insecurities more than learning to walk a narrow path through endless fields of eggshells.
        joe_the_user 5y ago
        The thing about this you're engaging in a clear fallacy. Depressed people tend to draw negative conclusions and reinforce their conclusions, therefore if someone draws a negative conclusion (that you consider unwarranted), they are depressed and making themselves worse. It's kind of logical for the entire bad-faith exercise involved in this article and the comments defending it. The whole thing is putting elaborate psycho-trappings on the "boomer" complaint of "you kids just too sensitive these days" (but just said about to things you consider fine).
        Natsu 5y ago
        > The thing about this you're engaging in a clear fallacy. Depressed people tend to draw negative conclusions and reinforce their conclusions, therefore if someone draws a negative conclusion (that you consider unwarranted), they are depressed and making themselves worse. I claimed that depression often leads to catastrophizing, not that catastrophizing is somehow exclusive to depression. So the "clear fallacy" here is reading a comment about how A sometimes implies B, then attacking the notion that B implies A, despite there being no logical connection between the two propositions.

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.
    - Natsu 5y ago
      The thing is, in my observations, depression pushes people into endless sets of no win conditions by punishing them for not obeying ever more restrictive and absurd rules. I don't want to claim what is/isn't a disease, but it's pretty obvious that some thought patterns hurt people a lot once you understand a little about how they work and get people to contort their lives around them. Getting out of that looks more like getting rid of the insecurities more than learning to walk a narrow path through endless fields of eggshells.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        The thing about this you're engaging in a clear fallacy. Depressed people tend to draw negative conclusions and reinforce their conclusions, therefore if someone draws a negative conclusion (that you consider unwarranted), they are depressed and making themselves worse. It's kind of logical for the entire bad-faith exercise involved in this article and the comments defending it. The whole thing is putting elaborate psycho-trappings on the "boomer" complaint of "you kids just too sensitive these days" (but just said about to things you consider fine).
        Natsu 5y ago
        > The thing about this you're engaging in a clear fallacy. Depressed people tend to draw negative conclusions and reinforce their conclusions, therefore if someone draws a negative conclusion (that you consider unwarranted), they are depressed and making themselves worse. I claimed that depression often leads to catastrophizing, not that catastrophizing is somehow exclusive to depression. So the "clear fallacy" here is reading a comment about how A sometimes implies B, then attacking the notion that B implies A, despite there being no logical connection between the two propositions.