What I’ve noticed reading these is that most of the stories are really inconsistent. Often it’s not even in the small ways like what tone things were said in, or connotation, but in major facts. For example, they agree they went hiking, but he says she ran off from him during lunch and then after looking for a while he found her by the car, and she says he ran off on her after lunch and after failing to find him she started walking home and then he passed her in the car (having gone to town). Most inconsistencies are smaller than that, but either way, clearly one or both are either making things up to sound more interesting, or they remember what happened only vaguely and then they fill in a whole lot from general impressions (or something along those lines).
Which is a reminder that, in general, you probably shouldn’t trust people when they tell you what happened. (Although it’s probably worse in cases when they were offended, since they’re more motivated to alter what happened.)
Also,
Offended people write about their own actions as if they are doing everything they can to keep the situation peaceful, while describing the other person’s actions as hostile and escalating. Is this because offended people think they are keeping their offendedness perfectly hidden, while in reality the other person can see it?
I think they mostly want to show you that they’re an amazing person who, even in insane circumstances like these, acts like a perfect human being (and by extension, that the circumstances, and the other person, were the absolute worst believable). Also, when they leave the offended state, they think of what they should have done, and then they probably reinterpret what they remember of what their actions to more closely match that. The reverse thing happens to the other person’s actions and they get reinterpreted in light of how evil they turned out to be.
Oh, you’re saying it’s like thinking really hard about not forgetting the thing and then forgetting the thing? They think really hard about what they should have done and then they think that’s what they did do? Those are problematic in much the same way.
Most inconsistencies are smaller than that, but either way, clearly one or both are either making things up to sound more interesting, or they remember what happened only vaguely and then they fill in a whole lot from general impressions (or something along those lines).
I keep oscillating between “these accounts of the same event are so different!” and “given how different these accounts are, they agree pretty well on this one thing!” I guess it would help to know if people find the site and dig up a distorted story out of their memory, or if they have a bad date and immediately go post on the site the way you would with a restaurant review.
They think really hard about what they should have done and then they think that’s what they did do?
Mostly this, yes, but more “they think what they probably did based on the kind of person they are”. Like, maybe, in this one, the guy reached over to the girl, and held on lightly to her sleeve and bumped the table, causing his drink to tilt slightly and spill over slightly (this being my theory for what “really” happened). So he thinks “Well, I’m not the type of person to grab someone to stop them from leaving, and I obviously didn’t do that. What I did was I reached out to her, asking her to stay.” And she thinks “This crazy bunny-killer grabbed me and he practically turned over the table and he spilled his drink”. And then they tell it to someone and any qualifiers go out the window and they exaggerate a bit more just to better convey their distress/innocence.
And hm, that’s a good point. I was modelling most of the posts as being put up immediately, but it really could be either one. I think the ones with rebuttals probably were posted immediately, because it seems like it’s a lot less likely that ones with a delay will get rebutted.
What I’ve noticed reading these is that most of the stories are really inconsistent. Often it’s not even in the small ways like what tone things were said in, or connotation, but in major facts. For example, they agree they went hiking, but he says she ran off from him during lunch and then after looking for a while he found her by the car, and she says he ran off on her after lunch and after failing to find him she started walking home and then he passed her in the car (having gone to town). Most inconsistencies are smaller than that, but either way, clearly one or both are either making things up to sound more interesting, or they remember what happened only vaguely and then they fill in a whole lot from general impressions (or something along those lines).
Which is a reminder that, in general, you probably shouldn’t trust people when they tell you what happened. (Although it’s probably worse in cases when they were offended, since they’re more motivated to alter what happened.)
Also,
I think they mostly want to show you that they’re an amazing person who, even in insane circumstances like these, acts like a perfect human being (and by extension, that the circumstances, and the other person, were the absolute worst believable). Also, when they leave the offended state, they think of what they should have done, and then they probably reinterpret what they remember of what their actions to more closely match that. The reverse thing happens to the other person’s actions and they get reinterpreted in light of how evil they turned out to be.
Oh, you’re saying it’s like thinking really hard about not forgetting the thing and then forgetting the thing? They think really hard about what they should have done and then they think that’s what they did do? Those are problematic in much the same way.
I keep oscillating between “these accounts of the same event are so different!” and “given how different these accounts are, they agree pretty well on this one thing!” I guess it would help to know if people find the site and dig up a distorted story out of their memory, or if they have a bad date and immediately go post on the site the way you would with a restaurant review.
Mostly this, yes, but more “they think what they probably did based on the kind of person they are”. Like, maybe, in this one, the guy reached over to the girl, and held on lightly to her sleeve and bumped the table, causing his drink to tilt slightly and spill over slightly (this being my theory for what “really” happened). So he thinks “Well, I’m not the type of person to grab someone to stop them from leaving, and I obviously didn’t do that. What I did was I reached out to her, asking her to stay.” And she thinks “This crazy bunny-killer grabbed me and he practically turned over the table and he spilled his drink”. And then they tell it to someone and any qualifiers go out the window and they exaggerate a bit more just to better convey their distress/innocence.
And hm, that’s a good point. I was modelling most of the posts as being put up immediately, but it really could be either one. I think the ones with rebuttals probably were posted immediately, because it seems like it’s a lot less likely that ones with a delay will get rebutted.