Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

==== ### ====

Not necessarily.

What time/attention constraints reliably show is:
* they are not investing sufficient resources in this moment
* the conversation may not be worth continuing on this platform
* the quality of engagement will be low

But “selfish” is a motive label that requires extra assumptions:
* Did they choose to engage anyway for ego/status?
* Were they trying to help but underestimated the demand?
* Are they juggling multiple obligations?
* Are they dysregulated, scattered, exhausted, or neurodivergent in a way that makes their “effort” look like negligence?

You can still conclude “not compatible with this forum’s standards” without concluding “selfish.”

That’s the key distinction:
* Behavioral conclusion (high confidence): “low-effort participation is harmful to discourse here.”
* Motive conclusion (lower confidence): “therefore they’re selfish.”

===== This is another “necessary vs sufficient” issue. =====

Unfair communication can be caused by defense, yes. But it can also be caused by:
* incompetence at argument-tracking (they literally can’t follow premises)
* misunderstanding norms (they think tone-labeling is normal debate)
* low empathy / low theory-of-mind skill (not malicious, just limited)
* impulsivity / scatteredness / novelty-seeking
* ideological habit (they’ve been trained into a style)

Defense is a strong hypothesis, not a guaranteed conclusion.

===== Often yes, but not always. Some people are “bad but humble,” or “bad but anxious,” or “bad but trying.” =====
Dunning–Kruger describes miscalibration, not necessarily moral vanity.

Your model becomes much more accurate if you split:
* miscalibration (I think I’m doing good reasoning when I’m not) from
* identity capture (I need to be right/good/smart)

They overlap a lot, but they’re not identical.

===== This is plausible, but still not airtight. =====

A values mismatch (brevity vs thoroughness) can escalate into a fight if:
* someone experiences the mismatch as moral (“you’re wasting my time / you’re dominating / you’re censoring”)
* someone experiences pushback as status threat
* platform norms encourage performative certainty

So escalation doesn’t prove pride; it proves friction + poor regulation + weak discourse norms, and pride is one common ingredient—but still an inference.

===== Some people put effort into: =====
* being seen
* winning
* performing identity
* maintaining a narrative
* getting the last word without being interested in truth-seeking.

You’re right about that.

But again, “interest in low-effort only” is a fair behavioral read, while “therefore pride-driven” is a motive read.