Is there any existing name for the kind of logical fallacy where one who actually considers whether they can achieve a thing is criticised above one who simply claims they’ll do the thing and doesn’t?
Examples abound in politics but here’s one concrete example:
In 2007 the UN passed the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. New Zealand, which was already putting some significant effort into supporting the rights of its indigenous people, genuinely considered whether they would be able to hold up the requirements of the declaration, and decided not to sign due to it being incredibly broad[1]. Many other countries, not doing much for their own indigenous people and recognising the declaration as non-binding, simply signed it essentially for the good vibes. As a result, New Zealand was criticised for not being willing to sign while others were, and was eventually pressured into signing (for the good vibes).
A similar situation, I think there was a research somewhere on software developers: the ones who promise to implement a feature in two weeks but actually implement it in three weeks are perceived by the management as more competent than those who promise to implement the same feature in three weeks and do it.
Which is counter-intuitive, because the actual productivity of both was the same, and the latter had better estimates which in theory should be a plus. But I guess how it works in real life is that the former make a better first impression, and their results, while not as good as advertised, are not actually worse than those of the latter.
In case of the developers, one could worry “what if the managers make specific plans that strongly depend on having the feature ready in two weeks” but that would be too naive on the side of the management. The difference of one week usually does not matter, it’s just about the general feeling of how quickly the developers work.
And in case of politics, the promises matter even less; it’s not like someone’s plan will depend on whether you support the indigenous people or not. You may be criticized for not doing something for them, but you will be criticized regardless of whether you made the promise or not.
Is there any existing name for the kind of logical fallacy where one who actually considers whether they can achieve a thing is criticised above one who simply claims they’ll do the thing and doesn’t?
Examples abound in politics but here’s one concrete example:
In 2007 the UN passed the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. New Zealand, which was already putting some significant effort into supporting the rights of its indigenous people, genuinely considered whether they would be able to hold up the requirements of the declaration, and decided not to sign due to it being incredibly broad[1]. Many other countries, not doing much for their own indigenous people and recognising the declaration as non-binding, simply signed it essentially for the good vibes. As a result, New Zealand was criticised for not being willing to sign while others were, and was eventually pressured into signing (for the good vibes).
[1] See e.g. https://www.converge.org.nz/pma/decleov07.pdf For example the entire country could feasibly fall under the requirements for returning land to indigenous people.
A similar situation, I think there was a research somewhere on software developers: the ones who promise to implement a feature in two weeks but actually implement it in three weeks are perceived by the management as more competent than those who promise to implement the same feature in three weeks and do it.
Which is counter-intuitive, because the actual productivity of both was the same, and the latter had better estimates which in theory should be a plus. But I guess how it works in real life is that the former make a better first impression, and their results, while not as good as advertised, are not actually worse than those of the latter.
In case of the developers, one could worry “what if the managers make specific plans that strongly depend on having the feature ready in two weeks” but that would be too naive on the side of the management. The difference of one week usually does not matter, it’s just about the general feeling of how quickly the developers work.
And in case of politics, the promises matter even less; it’s not like someone’s plan will depend on whether you support the indigenous people or not. You may be criticized for not doing something for them, but you will be criticized regardless of whether you made the promise or not.