Breaking News: Judge Revokes Anti-Stalking Order

[dastardly stem]

The label you've affixed to a person isn't evidence -- it's the kind of emotional bias that forms the foundation of motivated reasoning.

I certainly don't think affixing a label to someone, or anything for that matter, is evidence. I don't understand how that fits into this conversation.

Let's go back a bit because it feels like you've mischaracterized my stance a little, and I may be wrong. But I do want to understand your critique here so I can work on fixing myself. if I was employing motivational reasoning I'd have concluded something about this whole affair. I don't' think I have. Well, not the part's we've discussed. I'd be emotionally charged to neglect evidence and conclude Dehlin was the author of the emails or did intentionally log into her live feed not respecting the evidence which seems to conclude we don't know either way on that. I'm saying we don't know. thus, I can't really be employing motivated reasoning to justify or conclude something there.
True? or maybe not? Or what do you mean?

Anyway, I await further instruction on motivated reasoning, Res Ipsa.

[DrStakhanovite]

Does the smoke from this instance disperse?

It ought to. I think the ruling makes it pretty clear that he did not harass her.

Or even though she lost, did she win in terms of inflicting a limited amount of reputational damage to John Dehlin?

I think it is an unqualified win for Dehlin and swings the momentum in his favor.

[Res Ipsa]

The label you've affixed to a person isn't evidence -- it's the kind of emotional bias that forms the foundation of motivated reasoning.

I certainly don't think affixing a label to someone, or anything for that matter, is evidence. I don't understand how that fits into this conversation.

Let's go back a bit because it feels like you've mischaracterized my stance a little, and I may be wrong. But I do want to understand your critique here so I can work on fixing myself. if I was employing motivational reasoning I'd have concluded something about this whole affair. I don't' think I have. Well, not the part's we've discussed. I'd be emotionally charged to neglect evidence and conclude Dehlin was the author of the emails or did intentionally log into her live feed not respecting the evidence which seems to conclude we don't know either way on that. I'm saying we don't know. thus, I can't really be employing motivated reasoning to justify or conclude something there.
True? or maybe not? Or what do you mean?

Anyway, I await further instruction on motivated reasoning, Res Ipsa.

The fact that you could have reached more extreme conclusions using motivated reasoning does not mean that you didn’t use motivated reasoning to reach the conclusions you did reach.

Here’s what you said that I reacted to:

I've already concluded he doesn't seem like an honest actor in this space of ex-Mormonism. This only supports that, if you ask me.

And

This is just another event in a long list of events where he against comes off as the bad actor he's already shown himself to be.

But, there is nothing in the time line you laid out or the actual facts that you’ve mentioned beyond your own personal incredulity that indicates that Dehlin acted dishonestly or as a bad actor. You just go straight from your pure determined conclusions that Dehlin is dishonest and a bad actor to concluding that he has been a bad actor or dishonest in this matter.

Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are very similar, so if you take offense to the label I used, confirmation bias would work as well. Here’s a short article on the two: https://newslit.org/educators/resources ... reasoning/

If you go straight from your predetermined opinion to “This confirms my previous opinion” without assessing the actual facts to demonstrate why the facts support the conclusion, that’s 100% motivated reasoning/confirmation bias.

My use of labels is simply another way to think about motivated reasoning/confirmation bias. We all know that honest people are sometimes dishonest and dishonest people are sometimes honest. Good actors engage in good acts and bad actors engage in good acts.

“Dishonest” is simply a label you’ve assigned to John. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as when purporting to reason from evidence you don’t confuse Dehlin with your simplistic label. When you use your label as evidence, that’s an emotion based effort to confirm what you’ve already decided.

Now, go thy way and sin no more.

[pistolero]

It may be that Dehlin or his camp did it. However, the Judge said there wasn't any evidence proving it. He is a popular figure and someone unrelated could have done it, at least that's what I would have argued at the hearing. Kamp needed more tying Dehlin to the delivery. It's her burden.

There are frustratingly few details as to regards to the e-mail. Do we have an e-mail address of origin for example? Also, who is likely to have known e-mail addresses for 4 of JK's work colleagues?

If the e-mail was from John Dehlin@Open Stories Foundation.org or whatever his e-mail address is, then clearly I'm on JK's side for filing a stalking, harassment, or otherwise claim.

It is despicable to do these type of things. I'd be interested to hear John Dehlin condemn this type of behaviour, if he is allowed? Surely it's far too risky for him to be doing it himself. Perhaps a fixer could be involved, but surely more likely is it's just an over zealous Dehlinite? I'd hope John Dehlin could condemn this type of behaviour.

Not in any attempt to mitigate the above, but it's also not cool to be publishing unsubstantiated allegations the way that JK did. But that's a bit off topic here for this thread.

Well, yes, if you start off with your conclusion that Dehlin is dishonest...

Starting off with the assumption that DH is dishonest is very much the Brother Muhlestein playbook approach of "I start out with an assumption that ..."

[dastardly stem]

But, there is nothing in the time line you laid out or the actual facts that you’ve mentioned beyond your own personal incredulity that indicates that Dehlin acted dishonestly or as a bad actor.

Thanks for the demonstration, res ipsa. This is the point I’d disagree with. I’d say a bad actor would file a lawsuit in this scenario. That’s basically where’d I’d come from on that. Sounds like you would disagree. And now our disagreement would be whether a bad actor or a dishonest move is for file a lawsuit in this situation. I concluded that before I heard about Jenn’s order for stalking though.

If you go straight from your predetermined opinion to “This confirms my previous opinion” without assessing the actual facts to demonstrate why the facts support the conclusion, that’s 100% motivated reasoning/confirmation bias.

But, that’s all it took—the lawsuit. Thems the facts.

There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as when purporting to reason from evidence you don’t confuse Dehlin with your simplistic label. When you use your label as evidence, that’s an emotion based effort to confirm what you’ve already decided.

Now, go thy way and sin no more.

Alright thanks. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong about the episode in question. But yes, it is acting poorly and dishonest for him to file a lawsuit in that situation in my view. It could be you don’t think so. But there was no motivated reasoning as you had thought.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t see how you get from a guy being defamed filing a defamation lawsuit to “dishonest” or “bad actor,” But now you’ve introduced something new that would take us far afield from my brief comment that initiated the conversation. We simply disagree on the nature of the reasoning that you posted, and I don’t see that changing.

C’est la vie

[Moksha]

27.On February 14, 2023, approximately four people at Petitioner’s place of employment received an email that contained a video of the August 25, 2023 Board meeting and a copy of the complainant in Respondent’s lawsuit. There is no evidence that Respondent was directly or indirectly involved in sending the email to Petitioner’s workplace.

This is extremely uncool.

Does she have a place of employment other than making her own podcast?

[Moksha]

His lawsuit sounds about as frivolous as hers. How this makes john look good is beyond me. It seems to be more of the same old stuff following him around, accompanied with stupid things he does.

Any chance you could give us a running dialogue about this?

[drumdude]

RFM just released the court audio.

John got really unlucky hiring someone with very clearly unresolved mental health issues stemming from childhood abuse. It appears from the outside looking in that Jenn is projecting a lot of that abuse on to John.

[Dr Moore]

Yikes. Why would anyone do this to themselves?