[geofft]

A bit of a thought experiment for myself: suppose that Rod were as terrible as the worst possible claims made against him. (I am confident he's not.) Suppose he were actively, consciously hoping to deceive and harm the Node community. (I am also confident he's not.) What sort of statement would he write? How much would it look like this one?

[adamrezich]

Once somebody has decided someone else's guilt, all following stimuli is interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias by default—and it takes an uncommonly truth-seeking mind to see past it. No matter how "heartfelt" or "thoughtful" a written or verbal apology is, it won't change any minds that've already been made up.

This has been happening more and more recently, both online and in geopolitics.

[geofft]

Eh, my personal reaction was that I was significantly more sympathetic to him after reading his writeup, so I was wondering if that's actually evidence-based or just emotion-based.

[GenericsMotors]

Please follow up on what was the supposed evidence against him and you will see his response was reasonable.

[geofft]

Oh yeah - his response was definitely reasonable if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him was trumped up and he's in the right.

I'm just trying to figure out if his response is also what I'd expect to see if the facts are that the supposed evidence against him is completely accurate and that he's a toxic contributor who's trying to hurt the project.

[GenericsMotors]

So he is condemned in your eyes, not matter what evidence is presented?

[geofft]

Huh? That's rather the opposite of what I'm saying.

[albedoa]

lol what? Did you reply to the wrong comment?

[mcphage]

"You say you're not a witch? Why, that's exactly what a witch would say!"

[geofft]

Well, yes, the statement "I'm not a witch" is of zero information value. It's ridiculous to conclude "That's exactly what a witch would say, therefore I believe more that you are a witch", but it's equally ridiculous to conclude "That's exactly what a non-witch would say, therefore I believe more that you aren't a witch." You should not have your beliefs changed at all by the fact that someone claims not to be a witch (unless you believe that witches are unwilling to lie, or something).

I'm trying to figure out if this response is similarly of zero information value - interesting, but should not convince me either that he's in the right or that he's in the wrong - or of nonzero information value, convincing me that he's in the right. I'm currently leaning towards the former.