I admit I am a bit confused about the thesis here… I get that accurate behavioral accounting is sometimes tightly related to social punishment such that the attempt to give or defend oneself from punishment provides incentive to lie about the behavior (and attempts to describe the behavior have direct implications for punishment).
But are you further claiming that that all social punishment is identical[1] to truth-claims about other things (i.e. “reasons for the punishment”)? This seems like an ideal that I aspire to, but not how most people relate to social punishment, where social ostracism can sometimes simply be a matter of fashion or personal preference.
Personally I use phrases like “X is lame” or “X isn’t cool” to intentionally and explicitly set the status of things. I endeavor to always have good reasons for why and to provide them (or at least to have them ready if requested), but the move itself does not require justification in order to successfully communicate that something is having its status lowered or is something that I oppose. People would often happily just accept the status-claims without reasons, similar to learning what is currently ‘in fashion’.
On reflection I don’t quite mean identical to, but something more like “Is a deterministic function of truth-claims about good/bad behavior, taking that-and-only-that as input”.
I admit I am a bit confused about the thesis here… I get that accurate behavioral accounting is sometimes tightly related to social punishment such that the attempt to give or defend oneself from punishment provides incentive to lie about the behavior (and attempts to describe the behavior have direct implications for punishment).
But are you further claiming that that all social punishment is identical[1] to truth-claims about other things (i.e. “reasons for the punishment”)? This seems like an ideal that I aspire to, but not how most people relate to social punishment, where social ostracism can sometimes simply be a matter of fashion or personal preference.
Personally I use phrases like “X is lame” or “X isn’t cool” to intentionally and explicitly set the status of things. I endeavor to always have good reasons for why and to provide them (or at least to have them ready if requested), but the move itself does not require justification in order to successfully communicate that something is having its status lowered or is something that I oppose. People would often happily just accept the status-claims without reasons, similar to learning what is currently ‘in fashion’.
On reflection I don’t quite mean identical to, but something more like “Is a deterministic function of truth-claims about good/bad behavior, taking that-and-only-that as input”.