People have a tendency to be dishonest, either by lying or withholding information. But the constraints of poetry, including meter, rhyme, and alliteration (and maybe even some of the stylistic choices present in the post I wrote) make it harder for you to say •the exact words you would want to say•, and force you to say it some other way. And because it’s computationally costly to figure out how to say things within poetic constraints (and humans do not have unlimited computational power), it’s harder to figure out how to say things without letting slip some information you’d have wanted to withhold or be dishonest about. This means the probability of •a piece of information which is disadvantageous to the speaker• being spoken is higher, which makes it •both epistemically and instrumentally rationally advantageous• to pay attention to poetry as a signal about reality. (If you don’t find what I just said compelling, you probably have a much lower estimate of how much disinformation is in the world than I do; and I’d wager that my estimate is more correct)
You seem to imply that things that are true are easier to write than things that are false.
I don’t see why this would be true, and you don’t justify it either. Some wrong theories are very easy to write/say, while the much more complex reality would require a long explanation.
You seem to imply that things that are true are easier to write than things that are false.
I don’t see why this would be true, and you don’t justify it either. Some wrong theories are very easy to write/say, while the much more complex reality would require a long explanation.