“By acting on their assumptions, both confirmed the opposing side’s existing interpretation of being untrustworthy.”
That’s Truth Or Dare dynamic, or defect-defect equilibrium.
It’s also come from manipulative and antagonistic relationship to people—the cooperative thing is to inform them and let them make their opinion. giving people the information you think will make them think the right thoughts is not cooperative thing to do.
which is to say—i disagree about the reasonableness of the anticipatory coverup side.
It seems you think all those examples are examples of the same pattern. but it doesn’t look like that to me. the first example is the best, and it’s defect-defect equilibrium. the second looks to me first and foremost failure of exploration, of trying different things and see what happened, and secondly failure to come to the right conclusions from the evidence.
the third is not a valid map. aka, i don’t think this is what happening in those cases. i will not write here my full model of those situations, but reputation-to-outsiders take very small part of this model, and i don’t sure it’s really needed for explanation at all, when status and scapegoat dynamics explain it good enough. in the other hand, reputation-to-outsiders needed to explain why sometimes the offender does get punished. so, my model here is sort of opposite to yours.
4 is just bucket error, and also sort of not-cooperativeness that prevented by Law, in way similar to 1.
(I had somewhat similar dynamic with my parents, and then tried and it turned out that my parents doesn’t use any acknowledgment of their rightness against me, and that most people I encountered don’t. but that another story.)
also 4 is failure on the virtue of empiricism, but i don’t think i would get over the uncooperativeness and lack of respect from the friend to try solve it the empirical way. and don’t think it’s good idea to do that, in any case.
so as in part 5, I’m not convince that “anticipatory coverup” is real cluster. or, to be more precise, the first example point to real cluster in politics. the other parts have weak component of that, and my clustering algorithm cluster it with other things, or refuse to cluster them at all. also, the dynamic in (1) look to me like example of Truth Or Dare dynamic (per Duncan’s post), and Duncan’s description of Trust Equilibrium and Mistrust Equilibrium is better model for those situations, as anticipatory coverup is only one way that self-fulfilling mistrust can manifest.
“By acting on their assumptions, both confirmed the opposing side’s existing interpretation of being untrustworthy.”
That’s Truth Or Dare dynamic, or defect-defect equilibrium.
It’s also come from manipulative and antagonistic relationship to people—the cooperative thing is to inform them and let them make their opinion. giving people the information you think will make them think the right thoughts is not cooperative thing to do.
which is to say—i disagree about the reasonableness of the anticipatory coverup side.
It seems you think all those examples are examples of the same pattern. but it doesn’t look like that to me. the first example is the best, and it’s defect-defect equilibrium. the second looks to me first and foremost failure of exploration, of trying different things and see what happened, and secondly failure to come to the right conclusions from the evidence.
the third is not a valid map. aka, i don’t think this is what happening in those cases. i will not write here my full model of those situations, but reputation-to-outsiders take very small part of this model, and i don’t sure it’s really needed for explanation at all, when status and scapegoat dynamics explain it good enough. in the other hand, reputation-to-outsiders needed to explain why sometimes the offender does get punished. so, my model here is sort of opposite to yours.
4 is just bucket error, and also sort of not-cooperativeness that prevented by Law, in way similar to 1.
(I had somewhat similar dynamic with my parents, and then tried and it turned out that my parents doesn’t use any acknowledgment of their rightness against me, and that most people I encountered don’t. but that another story.)
also 4 is failure on the virtue of empiricism, but i don’t think i would get over the uncooperativeness and lack of respect from the friend to try solve it the empirical way. and don’t think it’s good idea to do that, in any case.
so as in part 5, I’m not convince that “anticipatory coverup” is real cluster. or, to be more precise, the first example point to real cluster in politics. the other parts have weak component of that, and my clustering algorithm cluster it with other things, or refuse to cluster them at all. also, the dynamic in (1) look to me like example of Truth Or Dare dynamic (per Duncan’s post), and Duncan’s description of Trust Equilibrium and Mistrust Equilibrium is better model for those situations, as anticipatory coverup is only one way that self-fulfilling mistrust can manifest.