4 ms·
I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops. Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we
by nstart 5y ago
I don't know if this has been tested, but I'd venture a guess that this has something to do with how one flip flops.
Exhibit A:
"This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong".
Changing this later to "This fact Y (that people were asking about, shh) is true. We won't mention that it contradicts X that much. We won't say we were wrong. We will say that as institution C Org, we have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise is wrong"
VS
Exhibit B:
"We as A Org, have reason to believe that X is the most true thing we know given current knowledge. We acknowledge fact Y exists and are actively investigating it and its implications. For people searching for guidance, A Org recommends actions S,T, and U. We will continue to research and revise information where necessary"
---
I feel like Exhibit A, which is something I see a lot from government entities (confirmation bias makes me want to add "in the US") makes a changing of mind a thing of pride since you've staked a bet on it. A bet which usually is condescending and says "I'm right, you're wrong"
Exhibit B leaves the hatches open while still getting a firm message down based on today's knowledge.
Sadly there's no A/B testing we can turn to to know which approach would be better. But just out of sensibility, I wish more entities engaged in the latter approach
- heavyset_go 5y ago> Exhibit A: "This fact X is correct and we as institution C Org have institutional knowledge that makes us right and anything otherwise wrong". I've noticed a pattern where people will take this as their default assumption, and even selectively read evidence to the contrary in order to maintain that assumption. For example, a while ago on HN[1], someone posted this link[2] about a CDC announcement titled "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'". The claim was that the CDC director, Walensky, insisted that vaccinated people do not carry COVID and insisted that they were 90% protected against infection, and the CDC wouldn't walk back on those claims. However, when reading the article, it shows that the assumption that the CDC was using Exhibit A's method in their announcement was wrong, and the CDC actually used the more reasonable method in your Exhibit B: > Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. > But more data is still necessary to say so definitively, which is why researchers are recruiting thousands of college students across the country to find out more about the likelihood of asymptomatic spread of this virus among vaccinated people. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30649479 [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated...
- nstart 5y agoThat is a valid and excellent point. Nuance is often discarded in favour of stirring trouble and it is very frustrating.