>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what

>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what a 'well-adjusted' person free of cognitive distortion would assume. Because thinking anything else requires Kim to believe her friends are liars or sociopaths. They obviously could be, and if there is a pattern they probably are, but if you assume that by default what's the backstop on the way to paranoid delusion? >Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?) Intent has always been part of the conversation, the question is which intent...the one stated or the one derived. Microaggressions are a pretty good example of this, in which acts that may have not even been perceived by the actor begin to create a layered story of malicious intent by the individual that perceived them as such. >The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent. Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie 'elevating the savages'. And this, to me, is a good example of what happens as a result. First of all, we don't even know if it's true that intentionality is now more of a focus in conversations or not. Regardless, you've now imagined a concrete intent behind the increase you perceive and now assume it to be true. Intents being unfalsifiable, it's impossible to prove otherwise. So what happens in your mind now when you see someone explain that an outcome was unintended...are they liars? Why would they lie? What is the intent? The recursive nature of this question is the path to conpsiratorial thinking and delusion.