“if I keep having “misunderstandings” with more people who have no past record of similar behavior, after two or three it cumulatively becomes a strong Bayesian evidence that I am actually the bad guy.”
It’s not quite that easy. Abuser’s may particularly tend to seek out vulnerable people, and it’s a real effect that when you are already raising a complaint about someone, this may open you up to further abuse by other bad actors, who can now have exploit that you now have spent your social capital.
In other words, Bayesian considerations have a place, but you need to be extra careful that you’re not misattributing the correlations.
“if I keep having “misunderstandings” with more people who have no past record of similar behavior, after two or three it cumulatively becomes a strong Bayesian evidence that I am actually the bad guy.” It’s not quite that easy. Abuser’s may particularly tend to seek out vulnerable people, and it’s a real effect that when you are already raising a complaint about someone, this may open you up to further abuse by other bad actors, who can now have exploit that you now have spent your social capital. In other words, Bayesian considerations have a place, but you need to be extra careful that you’re not misattributing the correlations.
Yes, that makes sense. But if we already assume that the truth may be impossible to figure out reliably, no solution is going to be perfect.
(There is also a similar problem, that some people are more likely to be falsely accused than others.)