The response in the interview mistakes the nature of the original question. Not every meaningful statement exists on a binary truth spectrum. Not every meaningful statement corresponds to a claim of empirical fact with quantifiable uncertainty. Saying “I have complete confidence in someone” is not a probabilistic assertion akin to saying “I am 100% certain it will rain tomorrow.” Rather, it’s an expression of trust, commitment, or endorsement—often used in a social or political context to convey support, leadership assurance, or accountability.
Confidence in a person, especially in the context of hiring or appointment, isn’t a measurable probability about future events; it’s a communicative act that signals intent and judgment. It doesn’t imply literal omniscience or absolute predictive accuracy. By dodging the question with a pseudo-Bayesian appeal to uncertainty, the speaker appears evasive rather than thoughtful. In fact, framing it this way undermines the communicative clarity and purpose of leadership rhetoric, not to serve as epistemological disclaimers.
This exchange is a clear example of someone co-opting the language of the rationalist community removed from its intended meaning and purpose. The interviewer’s question wasn’t about epistemic certainty or making a falsifiable prediction; it was a straightforward request for a statement of support or trust in an appointed individual
As a moderator of /r/TheMotte (back when it was on Reddit), I recognize that username immediately. He was tempbanned a few times (largely for those sorts of posts), but at the same time he was featured well over a dozen times in the “Quality Contributions” post we had to highlight the most informative/thoughtful posts. Just as a bit of a balanced perspective. Not to defend him entirely, though, I personally view his tantrum after being called out for plagiarism to be quite an indictment on his character, however insightful his blog posts are.