Wouldn't be mine, either! Nobody needs that sort of person in their life. But you are surely above the anecdotal fallacy...
Yes. Credibility built up over years of observation of her truthfulness and reasonableness. But I'd know she wasn't mentally ill or malicious or an insane ideologue which I couldn't know about a stranger. In the same way, I would get in the car of a male friend but not a stranger
-
-
But, as I said, you already noted that you had at least one friend who was developing a mental illness. Now, the false accusation may have come after the illness was apparent to you - but surely you could imagine that order being reversed, and your friend being untrustworthy?
-
Of course. I could always be wrong to trust the people I trust. But I'm likely to be less wrong than trusting people of whom I have no knowledge. People do establish credibility with their actions and there's a reason we tell kids to go in cars with certain people & not strangers
-
The best judge of future behaviour is past behaviour and we have the benefit of knowing what that is with our friends which we don't have with strangers. If someone is consistently honest for years, I'll believe her more than someone who consistently lies or someone I don't know
-
Why do you think you're likely to be less wrong? Statistically, a few of your friends are likely dodgy; you've seen it a few times yourself. Most rapes, most child abuse, most murders, pretty much all domestic violence - committed by someone the victim trusts, often greatly.
-
Of course you'd believe a consistent liar less; but statistically, strangers might actually be more trustworthy. And, of course, we're not often talking about random strangers - rather, strangers who have been vetted by a newspaper, or other members of the community, etc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.