There’s also a piece here of expressing “I didn’t go to the right because I was biased in its favor, I has the opposite bias and it took a lot of evidence to shift me over, which is meta-evidence in favor of my position”
(I also don’t generally see “The left went crazy and drove me to the far right”—usually it’s said by someone who went over the line from moderate left to moderate right. People who jump between extremes usually have different arguments)
I disagree about the meta-evidence. (Though I agree that the person may actually believe it.)
If you were in a position X, and after receiving a lot of evidence you switched to Y, it could mean that the truth is way beyond Y… or it could mean that you have overreacted and the truth is somewhere between X and Y… or it could mean that you have updated precisely and the truth is approximately Y. All these options are plausible.
Even the fact that you received a lot of evidence for Y could mean that Y is correct… or that you have accidentally entered an echo chamber of Y. You could even have left the echo chamber for X and entered the echo chamber for Y.
My general point is that your current position is what you believe is the best position. But including your history how you got there, that’s double-counting evidence. Your history how you got there is already a part of why you are there. (Aaaah, this does not explain my point well, but I can’t find good words right now.)
There’s also a piece here of expressing “I didn’t go to the right because I was biased in its favor, I has the opposite bias and it took a lot of evidence to shift me over, which is meta-evidence in favor of my position”
(I also don’t generally see “The left went crazy and drove me to the far right”—usually it’s said by someone who went over the line from moderate left to moderate right. People who jump between extremes usually have different arguments)
I disagree about the meta-evidence. (Though I agree that the person may actually believe it.)
If you were in a position X, and after receiving a lot of evidence you switched to Y, it could mean that the truth is way beyond Y… or it could mean that you have overreacted and the truth is somewhere between X and Y… or it could mean that you have updated precisely and the truth is approximately Y. All these options are plausible.
Even the fact that you received a lot of evidence for Y could mean that Y is correct… or that you have accidentally entered an echo chamber of Y. You could even have left the echo chamber for X and entered the echo chamber for Y.
My general point is that your current position is what you believe is the best position. But including your history how you got there, that’s double-counting evidence. Your history how you got there is already a part of why you are there. (Aaaah, this does not explain my point well, but I can’t find good words right now.)