I'm transparent about using LLMs as an editorial assistant (Claude 4.1 for this essay) but that last parenthetical just now came to me naturally, as I suspect almost all the ones in this essay did.
Interestingly enough, another reader asked me the same question on another essay but ended up citing a bunch of false positives: https://www.ymeskhout.com/p/beware-the-moral-homophone/comment/120595749
True but I made sure to qualify my claim as pertaining to boxing specifically.
I wrote a whole essay on proper & effective protest tactics: How to Protest Well
The basic template to follow is to keep all these questions in mind:
You're correct that I did not intend to convey that this phenomenon is motivated by cynical self-interest. I don't understand the Jordan Peterson connection.
I already said I don't consider alternative explanations on their own to be indicative of lying. I don't know where you're getting this notion that speculation is evasion, here's what I said on the matter:
If a client is either factually innocent or guilty-but-sober-minded, there’s no difficulty getting them to admit the incriminating nature of incriminating evidence. If a client is lying — whether to me, themselves, or just desperately trying to manifest a reality which doesn’t exist — it’s like pulling teeth.
If they have no idea what's going on then there's no need for this exercise. There's other ways to cooperate in truth-seeking.
I don't consider alternative explanations on their own to be indicative of lying, especially if the alternative theory as a whole more accurately comports with reality. This is why there are two parts to this exercise: surviving the gauntlet of facts and dethroning the other survivor (if any).
Why would lying be a natural response for a non-liar falsely accused of lying?
I've never encountered this framework before but I'm curious. What do you find useful about it?
On second thought, I should've been more precise. I changed it to "Weight can be such an extreme determinative factor...". Thanks for the note.