[ALawPoker]

EDIT: I've emboldened some of my reply, not to be a tool, but because it was longer than it needed to be and I wanted to make sure the crux was not buried.

[ QUOTE ]
It may not carry much weight in convincing you that their claim is true, but you would certainly expect that they are more likely to do X than those who claim they would not do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about people who firmly say they wouldn't do it. I'm talking about people who say things like "I don't know," "Maybe," "Probably not," "It depends," and "If it seemed right to me at the time."

This is an important distinction, as I would probably think people who say "definitely no" are the least likely of all. (FWIW, I think it's way more possible that someone could be detached from society to a large enough degree to rightfully make that claim, so I'd be more likely to believe him, and up the odds that he indeed wouldn't consider helping. But, I don't think it's possible for one human's empathy to totally blow the average out of the water to the degree where he can reasonably claim he would definitely help based on a very loose hypothetical.)

[ QUOTE ]
People sometimes strongly believe that they are good at poker for very weak irrational reasons. Does it follow that the people that claim to be good at poker are less likely to be good than those that say they are not good?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because "being good at poker" is very possible. So if someone says it, while there is some chance he is just running his mouth and is actually bad at poker (and I'd certainly factor that in), there is also the very reasonable possibility that he is indeed good at poker!

If he told me he had 6 bracelets, and if I knew he didn't possibly have any bracelets, then I would say yes, he's probably more likely to be worse than (all else being equal) someone who says "eh, I'm decent."

[ QUOTE ]
How about people who say they could withstand water boarding?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never water boarded, but I assume my answer is exactly the same as the poker one. If withstanding water boarding is something that is reasonably plausible, then again, the analogy doesn't apply. If someone says they can do it then they probably can. If someone says they can actually walk on water and don't need the board, then I laugh it off and don't interpret his irrational claim in a way that makes me think he's more likely to be a good water boarder.

You seem to think that because it's possible to save a burning baby that it follows that it can be possible to KNOW FOR SURE that you would save the burning baby based on an abstract hypothetical. They are two very different things, and you're missing my major point -- that I think it is impossible to know how you would react. And so, when you claim a definite direction, your claim itself is empty. All that matters to me is why one would make such claim. Is it more likely that he's stated the impossible because he is more likely than the average person to help or because he is less likely? I think it's the latter, but there really is no way to prove it one way or the other beyond "that's just what makes sense to me."

[ QUOTE ]
If your point is just that the definitely yes people are very likely irrational/mistaken/decieving themselves I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... it's more "~100% certainly" than "very likely," which might sound nitty but is actually a critical distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are claiming that the yes people are more likely making a false claim, again I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK... again it's that I think the "definitely yes" people are "almost certainly" making an impossible claim.

[ QUOTE ]
If you claim that the Nos are more likely to run into a building I am not swayed from thinking that is crazy and false.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say this (and really the entire post) as if I haven't even considered that on a very rudimentary level the claim that people who say they might not do something are actually more likely to do it is an odd position.

But then you've fumbled just about every argument. And actually, I am more sure now than I was when I originally made the claim that I am right.

Your analogies have nothing to do with my claim here (and for that matter, my vertical leap one wasn't perfect either). Really, they're way off. My claim lies on the assumption that most people would react roughly the same, because the decision is one that relies on our most basic of human instincts. Your examples deal with things that we can perceive some humans to be much better at than others, and where a very high percentage of the population doesn't even engage in the activity (so just by talking about it, you can assume that such person is already above average).

The whole point behind what I'm saying is that words are pretty meaningless to how the person would actually react in the baby situation. In poker (while sure, some people lie or are delusional) it's very possible to be sure about what your ability actually is. No one can reasonably be sure of what they would do in ultra high stress hypothetical X. NOTHING you could say to me could convince me that you are terribly more likely or less likely to save the baby. Your subconscious will drive you to one decision or the other, and you have to be in the moment to know which one it will be.

So, if someone does insist that they'd do it, I lend ~0 credence to this statement (not because I immediately dismiss any strong claim that comes at me, but because I consider this a near impossible position). I'll give him some 1/X chance that he actually would 100% help and somehow knows this. So on that front his likelihood goes up. To whatever extent the 1/X doesn't apply, I think it's slightly more likely that his claim indicates he would be less likely to help than someone who is not claiming an irrational position. I think this outweighs the minute 1/X chance that he is 100% to help.

Someone who says "I don't know" or even "I probably wouldn't" is offering what I believe to be the standard, rational, human response, so I am considering this person (since he too is a warm blooded human regardless of how callous he might sound on a message board) to have a "standard" likelihood of going into the building. You seem to think this claim lowers his likelihood, and that's the mistake you're making. I believe this person's likelihood is neither raised nor lowered by his honest response, and I believe the "100% yes" type of response to most likely not be raised or lowered either, but to whatever extent it is anything, I think it is actually lowered.

You seem to be confusing "irrational position" with "strong but perfectly plausible position" in your analogies.