Allowing only evidence of certain form in some roles is a way of making it easier to judge when exploitability/bias/illegibility are expected to be an issue.
We are, I think, dealing with that old problem of motivated cognition. As Gilovich says: “Conclusions a person does not want to believe are held to a higher standard than those they do.
That is only very vaguely related to what I was saying. I was essentially pointing out that even benign examples of double standards serve particular purposes that don’t always apply, and when they don’t, it’s best to get rid of the double standards.
Allowing only evidence of certain form in some roles is a way of making it easier to judge when exploitability/bias/illegibility are expected to be an issue.
This is a tradeoff. It’s wasteful when it’s not actually needed, and often enough it’s impossible to observe the form without losing sight of the target.
I can at least agree that:
That is only very vaguely related to what I was saying. I was essentially pointing out that even benign examples of double standards serve particular purposes that don’t always apply, and when they don’t, it’s best to get rid of the double standards.