tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3146989089733681229..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Reasonable expectationsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70019372683124537962015-04-18T14:57:56.058-04:002015-04-18T14:57:56.058-04:00Great post.Great post.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91073770245942599382015-04-18T10:17:20.891-04:002015-04-18T10:17:20.891-04:00Interesting discussion. It brings to mind a few th...Interesting discussion. It brings to mind a few things:<br /><br />1. The Law of Moses included sacrifices for sins that the people didn't know they committed. While it can be said that this demonstrates a disconnect between sin and intent, I would disagree. We simply lack the introspection to be aware of all of our motives. I don't know if this would be considered self-deception or not. There's a point at which too much introspection is simply not healthy. Better to recognize that total depravity is a true principle.<br /><br />2. Police interrogators ask questions with the expectation that they will be lied to so that they can look for clues of how someone lies. So there's a pattern where lies are expected for the purpose of learning someone's "tell".<br /><br />3. Negotiators similarly go through the motions of asking questions simply because the questions are expected although the answers will be stock affirmations (or not, such as the case may be). We do this when we install software and are asked if we read the legal agreement, which is lengthy and written in legalese. No one is expected to actually read this or actually understand the implications of all the verbiage. But if you want the software, you have to assent to handing over the legal advantage to the company that produced the software in the event that you inadvertently (or intentionally) misuse the software in some way that the company understands to be a legal or financial liability to them. No one is fooled. No one actually reads these things. It's simply a legal formality to say you did. So it's not really a deception on the behalf of the user.<br /><br />4. In the same vein as item 3, I would argue that some of that legalese is an intent to deceive. For example, there is often some caveat in the legal agreement or privacy policy that your personal information will not be used except by the company "and the company's partners". Those "partners" or "third parties" are often the bridge to spammers. They won't tell you that, but such things are intentionally obfuscated by arcane legal and corporate technical jargon. It's also why people often distrust individuals with a natural above-average vocabulary: "I don't understand what you are saying, so I suspect that you are trying to trick me, like those blood-sucking lawyers."Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.com