> People can mask their lies using their prior honest reputation. If anything this kind of lie can be more damaging.
Yeah, but it's more likely they will continue their reputation as a reliable source, and that someone with a track record of dishonesty and non-transparency will continue being dishonest and non-transparent. So those two things combined result in no net effect on the bayesian priors, and we are again left with `VF > JK`, absent further evidence.
> I'm not saying VF is lying in this case, it could all be true, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
Given the bayesian priors, VF's claim doesn't seem all that extraordinary, whereas JK's claim of innocence in comparison seems rather extraordinary. From there I apply the same heuristic of extraordinary claims.
Honestly I doubt Jared has even read the book, so I don't see how he could even be an informed source on the matter of his denials.
Yeah, but it's more likely they will continue their reputation as a reliable source, and that someone with a track record of dishonesty and non-transparency will continue being dishonest and non-transparent. So those two things combined result in no net effect on the bayesian priors, and we are again left with `VF > JK`, absent further evidence.
> I'm not saying VF is lying in this case, it could all be true, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.
Given the bayesian priors, VF's claim doesn't seem all that extraordinary, whereas JK's claim of innocence in comparison seems rather extraordinary. From there I apply the same heuristic of extraordinary claims.
Honestly I doubt Jared has even read the book, so I don't see how he could even be an informed source on the matter of his denials.