A couple of ways this comment feels like it’s talking past Duncan:
As for the ones who have already engaged in fights with you and continued to dislike you[1]… well, why would they change their opinions of you? You had an established reputation at that point; part of the role reputation plays in human social interactions is to ensure social punishment for perceived transgressions of norms, regardless of when the purported transgressor starts signaling he is changing his behavior. For all people may wax poetically about accepting change and giving people second chances, in practice that doesn’t really happen, in a way I think is quite justifiable from their POV.
Feels like Duncan said “X didn’t happen, because people aren’t good at it” and you’re saying “indeed, people aren’t good at X, what did you expect?”
Like, do you claim that “reputation fails to update in the face of actual changes in behavior (not just someone announcing their intent to change)” is a good thing?
Fallacious black and white thinking, here.
Feels like you think Duncan thinks the options are “Nate’s amount of bruising” and “no bruising”. I don’t know why you’d think Duncan thinks that.
Feels like you think Duncan thinks the options are “Nate’s amount of bruising” and “no bruising”. I don’t know why you’d think Duncan thinks that.
No, I don’t believe Duncan thinks this (it’s a pretty dumb thing to believe, and Duncan is smart). I believe Duncan was intentionally using rhetorically dishonest language to distract from the possibility of “reducing” bruising by talking only about “never” bruising another person.
Like, do you claim that “reputation fails to update in the face of actual changes in behavior (not just someone announcing their intent to change)” is a good thing?
I’m saying “subconsciously pre-committing to ignoring claims/purported evidence of changed behavior, because usually they’re wrong and it’s not worth the cost of litigating individual cases” is often times the correct thing to do.
A couple of ways this comment feels like it’s talking past Duncan:
Feels like Duncan said “X didn’t happen, because people aren’t good at it” and you’re saying “indeed, people aren’t good at X, what did you expect?”
Like, do you claim that “reputation fails to update in the face of actual changes in behavior (not just someone announcing their intent to change)” is a good thing?
Feels like you think Duncan thinks the options are “Nate’s amount of bruising” and “no bruising”. I don’t know why you’d think Duncan thinks that.
No, I don’t believe Duncan thinks this (it’s a pretty dumb thing to believe, and Duncan is smart). I believe Duncan was intentionally using rhetorically dishonest language to distract from the possibility of “reducing” bruising by talking only about “never” bruising another person.
I’m saying “subconsciously pre-committing to ignoring claims/purported evidence of changed behavior, because usually they’re wrong and it’s not worth the cost of litigating individual cases” is often times the correct thing to do.