It’s now obvious to me that the outside viewer does see P(M|C) > P(M|¬C), and why.
However, what schminux gave is not C, but R(C) + Q, and to any attentive reader I assume that P(M|R(C)+Q+C) < P(M|¬C) < P(M) < P(M|C); where R(C) is a meta-observation about one’s own (past?) observations/comments C¹ , and Q is a question about the evidence carried by C and R(C).
Any external reader who misses this is, as far as I can tell, simply wrong. They were most likely themselves taken by confirmation bias or some other undesirable effect.
Confirmation bias among self-proclaimed feminists is actually something I have a rather high prior for, since they train themselves to see gender bias everywhere in many cases.
(and R(C) does include C as a component once unwrapped, but for clarity I added C in the chain above; assume appropriate anti-double-counting measures are taken)
Okay. That makes it much clearer.
It’s now obvious to me that the outside viewer does see P(M|C) > P(M|¬C), and why.
However, what schminux gave is not C, but R(C) + Q, and to any attentive reader I assume that P(M|R(C)+Q+C) < P(M|¬C) < P(M) < P(M|C); where R(C) is a meta-observation about one’s own (past?) observations/comments C¹ , and Q is a question about the evidence carried by C and R(C).
Any external reader who misses this is, as far as I can tell, simply wrong. They were most likely themselves taken by confirmation bias or some other undesirable effect.
Confirmation bias among self-proclaimed feminists is actually something I have a rather high prior for, since they train themselves to see gender bias everywhere in many cases.
(and R(C) does include C as a component once unwrapped, but for clarity I added C in the chain above; assume appropriate anti-double-counting measures are taken)