I do agree that it adds complexity. But so does “He was actually a vegan”. Of course the “He was actually a vegan” complexity is paid for in evidence of him endorsing veganism and never being seen eating meat. But this evidence also pays for the complexity of adding “He was pretending to be a vegan” to the “He was thoroughly a conman” hypothesis.
But didn’t he project a highly idealistic image in general? Committing to donating to charity, giving off a luxury-avoiding vibe, etc.. This gives evidence to narrow the conman hypothesis down from common conmen to conmen who pretend to be highly idealistic. And I’m not sure P(vegan|highly idealistic) exceeds P(claims to be vegan|conman who pretends to be highly idealistic).
I do agree that it adds complexity. But so does “He was actually a vegan”. Of course the “He was actually a vegan” complexity is paid for in evidence of him endorsing veganism and never being seen eating meat. But this evidence also pays for the complexity of adding “He was pretending to be a vegan” to the “He was thoroughly a conman” hypothesis.
But not a lot since highly idealistic people tend to be vegan. I think P(vegan|highly idealistic)>P(claims vegan|conman)
But didn’t he project a highly idealistic image in general? Committing to donating to charity, giving off a luxury-avoiding vibe, etc.. This gives evidence to narrow the conman hypothesis down from common conmen to conmen who pretend to be highly idealistic. And I’m not sure P(vegan|highly idealistic) exceeds P(claims to be vegan|conman who pretends to be highly idealistic).