Starting to suspect that there are decreasing returns to damaging a person's reputation with scandal when n > 1 and negative when n > 3 Probably especially so when subsequent stories are small beer compared to the original Sort of an "arson, murder, and jaywalking" effect
-
-
It's the Paradox of Unanimity. The more evidence you have of a proposition, the more evidence you have that there's a systemic bias. 3 witnesses are credible, 100 is a show trial.
-
(On further reflection, I realize that the phenomenon you're describing is not quite the Paradox of Unanimity, although there is some conceptual overlap.)
-
(yes, total agreement)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Clinton’s email scandal seemed stickiy, though.
-
They did just hammer that one thing repeatedly, maybe more effective?
-
Agreed. It seemed like keeping it on that one point was really effective. Anything that happened afterwards was always easy to interpret through that framework. Even the pedo/pizza people would still say emails worse, right?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think this has a lot more to do with power than the number of claims. If it were just 1 claim it wouldn't be taken any more or less credible because people choose to invent their own fictions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.