This is quite a small note, but it’s representative of a lot of things that tripped me up in the OP, and might be relevant to the weird distortion:
> Jessica said she felt coerced into a frame she found uncomfortable
I note that Jessica said she was coerced.
I suspect that Nate-dialect tracks meaningful distinctions between whether one feels coerced, whether one has evidence of coercion, whether one has a model of coercive forces which outputs predictions that closely resemble actual events, whether one expects that a poll of one’s peers would return a majority consensus that [what happened] is well-described by the label [coercion], etc.
By default, I would have assumed that Jessica-dialect tracks such distinctions as well, since such distinctions are fairly common in both the rationalsphere and (even moreso) in places like MIRI.
But it’s possible that Jessica was not, with the phrase “I was coerced,” attempting to convey the strong thing that would be meant in Nate-dialect by those words, and was indeed attempting to convey the thing you (automatically? Reflexively?) seem to have translated it to: “I felt coerced; I had an internal experience matching that of being coerced [which is an assertion we generally have a social agreement to take as indisputable, separate from questions of whether or not those feelings were caused by something more-or-less objectively identifiable as coercion].”
I suspect a lot of what you describe as weird distortion has its roots in tiny distinctions like this made by one party but not by the other/taken for granted by one party but not by the other. That particular example leapt out to me as conspicuous, but I posit many others.
This is quite a small note, but it’s representative of a lot of things that tripped me up in the OP, and might be relevant to the weird distortion:
> Jessica said she felt coerced into a frame she found uncomfortable
I note that Jessica said she was coerced.
I suspect that Nate-dialect tracks meaningful distinctions between whether one feels coerced, whether one has evidence of coercion, whether one has a model of coercive forces which outputs predictions that closely resemble actual events, whether one expects that a poll of one’s peers would return a majority consensus that [what happened] is well-described by the label [coercion], etc.
By default, I would have assumed that Jessica-dialect tracks such distinctions as well, since such distinctions are fairly common in both the rationalsphere and (even moreso) in places like MIRI.
But it’s possible that Jessica was not, with the phrase “I was coerced,” attempting to convey the strong thing that would be meant in Nate-dialect by those words, and was indeed attempting to convey the thing you (automatically? Reflexively?) seem to have translated it to: “I felt coerced; I had an internal experience matching that of being coerced [which is an assertion we generally have a social agreement to take as indisputable, separate from questions of whether or not those feelings were caused by something more-or-less objectively identifiable as coercion].”
I suspect a lot of what you describe as weird distortion has its roots in tiny distinctions like this made by one party but not by the other/taken for granted by one party but not by the other. That particular example leapt out to me as conspicuous, but I posit many others.