downvoted—massively incorrect analysis of payouts, and incredibly weird omission of the idea of “truth” or even “narrative cohesion and consistency with observational evidence” as playing any part in claims or beliefs.
Also, a politically-charged / pop-culture topic that’s a bad candidate for exploring rationality, and does not belong on LW.
My primary point is that game-theory framing (especially very simple payoff matrices) is very far down the list of kinds of evidence we have for beliefs about what happened.
Narrative coherence is about what stories are being told, and how well their entanglements with other observations/witnesses, and with other things they’ve said, hold up. If two propositions (specific parts of their claims that are true or false) are inconsistent, then at least one of them is false.
downvoted—massively incorrect analysis of payouts, and incredibly weird omission of the idea of “truth” or even “narrative cohesion and consistency with observational evidence” as playing any part in claims or beliefs.
Also, a politically-charged / pop-culture topic that’s a bad candidate for exploring rationality, and does not belong on LW.
What do you mean by narrative coherence?
My primary point is that game-theory framing (especially very simple payoff matrices) is very far down the list of kinds of evidence we have for beliefs about what happened.
Narrative coherence is about what stories are being told, and how well their entanglements with other observations/witnesses, and with other things they’ve said, hold up. If two propositions (specific parts of their claims that are true or false) are inconsistent, then at least one of them is false.