[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I believe there is no way they could know this no matter how resolutely they claim it, all their sureness indicates to me is that they claim an irrational position. If someone said he had an 8 foot vertical leap, I would think "Hmm, humans don't have the capacity for 8 foot vertical leaps, so I wonder why he would say that?" From there, it seems more likely to me that they claim this because they'd actually be less willing to help than because they'd be more willing to help. Agree/disagree/why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why it seems more likely to you. I don't see the relevance of the example either. If humans can't jump eight feet then the person who claims that we will do it has an equal chance of doing it compared with those who claim they won't do it. If 1/100000000000 could through some mutation, I would think the person who claims that he will do it is still more likely to be able to jump 8 feet than those that claim the opposite. To be clear it's not more likely that they are correct in the claim, it is more likely that they would make the jump/ run-into building, etc.

If somebody claims a strong position and unjustifiably (all cases won't be unjustified) believes strongly they will do X in the future. 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.

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? This actually is a more interesting and probably irrelevant case because good poker players tend to not want everyone to know how good they are. You could imagine that the good players won't lie to cancel that out.

How about people who say they could withstand water boarding? Ignore the fence sitters. Who do you think is more likely to withstand it, the people who claim they would or the people who claim that they wouldn't. Now the people who claim they wouldn't would be correct at a much higher % and probably overall more rational people, but I don't think they would more likely to withstand it.

If your point is just that the definitely yes people are very likely irrational/mistaken/decieving themselves I agree. If you are claiming that the yes people are more likely making a false claim, again I agree. 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.