However, I’d like to build on your Elbonian example. Suppose that our defender-of-Ruritania-in-just-this-obscure-dispute happens to mention the Ruritania dispute during a discussion of Elbonian music. The subject is brought up again when Elbonian dairy products are mentioned. When the soccer match between Elbonia and Femurgia is being dissected, our friend again brings up that obscure dispute with Ruritania.
After a few weeks of this, would the Elbonian be completely irrational to reach the conclusion that this guy apparently doesn’t care much for Elbonia?
All sorts of patterns are visible to those who look for them.
After a few weeks of this, would the Elbonian be completely irrational to reach the conclusion that this guy apparently doesn’t care much for Elbonia?
No—but it is absolutely crucial in this case that the same person is involved in each interaction. If instead they involved three different people, it would be entirely unfair to transfer the (very slight) evidence of anti-Elbonia hostility on the part of the first two people to the third guy, so that he seems three times as hostile as the first person did.
(It’s also crucial that the topic of discussion was assumed to be unrelated specifically to the dispute.)
… it is absolutely crucial in this case that the same person is involved in each interaction.
As an abstract issue of fairness and rationality, you are of course correct. However, our Elbonian friend might be forgiven for seeing things differently if he is reminded of an old Elbonian proverb—something about failing to notice the wolf pack due to being distracted by the wolves.
Upvoted. Good point.
However, I’d like to build on your Elbonian example. Suppose that our defender-of-Ruritania-in-just-this-obscure-dispute happens to mention the Ruritania dispute during a discussion of Elbonian music. The subject is brought up again when Elbonian dairy products are mentioned. When the soccer match between Elbonia and Femurgia is being dissected, our friend again brings up that obscure dispute with Ruritania.
After a few weeks of this, would the Elbonian be completely irrational to reach the conclusion that this guy apparently doesn’t care much for Elbonia?
All sorts of patterns are visible to those who look for them.
No—but it is absolutely crucial in this case that the same person is involved in each interaction. If instead they involved three different people, it would be entirely unfair to transfer the (very slight) evidence of anti-Elbonia hostility on the part of the first two people to the third guy, so that he seems three times as hostile as the first person did.
(It’s also crucial that the topic of discussion was assumed to be unrelated specifically to the dispute.)
As an abstract issue of fairness and rationality, you are of course correct. However, our Elbonian friend might be forgiven for seeing things differently if he is reminded of an old Elbonian proverb—something about failing to notice the wolf pack due to being distracted by the wolves.