The Outsourced Exception Pattern

Two observations about how people interact with differing opinions they encounter:

• it's easy to mistake someone else's opinion for an attack on identity
• people rarely agree with things that feel like an attack on their identity

Pick a subject, nearly any subject, and there will be people flipping out about differing opinions. Nothing new here, no need to elaborate.

What I find interesting is one subtle way this plays out online. A subtle enough pattern that it's worth talking about. Let me illustrate the pattern with an example, starting with a person posting their opinion/observation online:

When people encounter something like this, a fork happens: some get offended, some don't. Most non-offended people scroll past the opinion or like. It's the offended people who are more likely to engage with the post. The offended can be split into two groups again:

Here's the part I find interesting: Someone from that small minority comments, explaining how the observation doesn't apply to them. Then the majority, the people where it does apply, comment onto that reply.

The majority latch onto the exception case that doesn't apply to them. Dismissing the original opinion is cheaper than changing behavior. I call this pattern the Outsourced Exception Pattern.

One easy objection to this pattern is that the original opinion could have been worded better. This objection doesn't acknowledge that writing is a loser's game, and defensive writing is even worse — losing with more words. People will find a way to be offended no matter how carefully you phrase things. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and be grateful for any kind of reply, you might learn something.

Once you zoom out a little, you notice this pattern everywhere. Simpson's paradox is an example from the statistics world. From the legal world there is the "Hard cases make bad law" concept.