An additional possibility: everything already adds up to normality, we’re just failing to notice because of how we’re framing the question (in this case, whether or not holding middling probability estimates for difficult and controversial statements is correct).
An additional possibility: everything already adds up to normality, we’re just failing to notice because of how we’re framing the question (in this case, whether or not holding middling probability estimates for difficult and controversial statements is correct).
Can you suggest a better way of framing the question?
(I’m not very sure what sort of adding-up-to-normality you have in mind; are you saying my “good explanation #1” is likely the correct one?)
Yeah, I think #1 sounds right to me, and there is nothing strange about it.