Post

This implicitly assumes everything is honest. How does it account for dishonesty? Dishonesty normally relies on the language of sincere belief to be convincing, because there is no supporting evidence. I think there is an area for further research re honest v dishonest expressions of belief. 1/4

The graph of EMI over time could also be showing an increase in dishonesty over time, with the decline in the use of evidence actually being a decline in the availability of evidence, as politicians became more dishonest. 2/4

The conclusion reliance on intuituion is associated with negative impacts might be correlation rather than causation, with the actual cause being a decrease in honesty, leading to everything else - switching from evidence to belief - inequality - polarisation - decreased legislative productivity 3/4

No one embodies this conundrum better than Donald Trump, who made 30,000+ false claims (www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...) during his 1st term but was considered honest by ~75% of his voters (www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...). How can a record of serial falsehoods be considered honest? 2/n

My collaborators and I have been pursuing this puzzle for several years, and we are beginning to understand what is going on. Key to understanding the phenomenon of “honest liars” is that concepts such as honesty and truth are not unidimensional. 3/n

There are different ways in which honesty can be understood and what people consider to be the truth. One approach relies on evidence and is concerned with the state of the world. The other approach relies on intuition and is concerned with sincere expression of belief. 4/n

The first and most necessary topic in philosophy is that of the use of moral theorems such as, "we ought not to lie;" the second is that of demonstrations, such as, "what is the origin of our obligation not to lie;" the third gives strength and articulation to the other two, such as, "what is the

origin of this is a demonstration. For what is a demonstration? What is consequence? What contradiction? What truth? What falsehood? The third topic, then, is necessary on the account of the second, and the second on account of the first. But the most necessary, and that whereon we ought to rest,

Is it anything to do with the difference between factual and normative beliefs (values)? Being dishonest about factual beliefs is a powerful signal that you will remain true to certain normative beliefs - the greater the dishonesty, the greater the proof of commitment to those normative beliefs.

Absolutely. We saw this with Trump's claim of biggest inaug. audience back in 2016--could easily see falseness of claim by photos, but became a maga signal *because* it was false--only true believers would claim it was true.

Miracles can have same function in religion--e.g. belief in transubstantiation. If I say "the sky is blue" and you agree, well, we both see the same basic reality. It says nothing about your belief in me. If I say "sky is purple w/ yellow dots" and you agree, that demonstrates your loyalty to me