Criticism of unjustified confidence for being unjustified increases the accuracy of shared maps. Criticism of unjustified confidence for reasons of social status regulation is predictably not going to be limited to cases where the confidence is unjustified, even if it happens to be unjustified in a particular case.
This sounds like it’s contrasting “criticism for being unjustified” against “criticism for social status regulation”. But those aren’t the same use of the word “for”, much like it would be weird to contrast “locking someone up for murder” against “locking someone up for deterrence”. (Though “for deterrence” might be a different “for” again, I’m not sure.)
To unpack, when I said
I think I’m fine with that kind of tone policing being used for social status regulation when the confidence is unjustified.
I didn’t intend to support someone being like “I want to do some social status regulation and I’m going to do it by tone policing some unjustified confidence”. I meant to support “this is unjustified confidence, I want less of this and to that end I’m going to do some social status regulation through the mechanism of tone policing”. I can’t tell if you’re yay-that or boo-that.
I guess that when you said
Perhaps read the second half of this post as expressing anxiety about tone-policing of confident-sounding language being used for social status regulation rather than to optimize communication of actual uncertainty?
I basically ignored the “rather than...” and thought you were just opposed to tone-policing of confident sounding language in general. And the reason I did that might be that in my head, it’s surprising to talk about “tone policing for social status regulation, rather than tone policing to optimize communication”; rather, I’d expect to talk about “tone policing for social status regulation, in order to optimize communication”.
This sounds like it’s contrasting “criticism for being unjustified” against “criticism for social status regulation”. But those aren’t the same use of the word “for”, much like it would be weird to contrast “locking someone up for murder” against “locking someone up for deterrence”. (Though “for deterrence” might be a different “for” again, I’m not sure.)
To unpack, when I said
I didn’t intend to support someone being like “I want to do some social status regulation and I’m going to do it by tone policing some unjustified confidence”. I meant to support “this is unjustified confidence, I want less of this and to that end I’m going to do some social status regulation through the mechanism of tone policing”. I can’t tell if you’re yay-that or boo-that.
I guess that when you said
I basically ignored the “rather than...” and thought you were just opposed to tone-policing of confident sounding language in general. And the reason I did that might be that in my head, it’s surprising to talk about “tone policing for social status regulation, rather than tone policing to optimize communication”; rather, I’d expect to talk about “tone policing for social status regulation, in order to optimize communication”.