<p>Russell Conjugation (or emotive conjugation).</p>
<p>The tendency of people to regard their own characteristics more charitably than those of others, and to rank others according (at least in part) to proximity to earshot:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.</p>
<p>I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over
nothing.</p>
<p>I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has
gone back on his word.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Eric Weinstein expands:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Russell Conjugation (or “emotive conjugation”) is a presently obscure
construction from linguistics, psychology and rhetoric which
demonstrates how our rational minds are shielded from understanding
the junior role factual information generally plays relative to
empathy in our formation of opinions.</p>
<p>I frequently suggest it as perhaps the most important idea with which
almost no one seems to be familiar, as it showed me just how easily my
opinions could be manipulated without any need to falsify facts.</p>
<p>Historically, the idea is not new and seems to have been first defined
by several examples given by Bertrand Russell in 1948 on the BBC
without much follow up work, until it was later rediscovered in the
internet age and developed into a near data-driven science by pollster
Frank Luntz beginning in the early 1990s.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Luntz</a>, a US political and communications consultant:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and
interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing
audiences to react based on emotion. &quot;80 percent of our life is
emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested
in how you feel than how you think. ... If I respond to you quietly,
the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I
respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms
around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a
freak.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T19:55:23.947Z
2021-10-31T19:55:23.947Z
Jiminy Cricket.
<p>He lied.</p>
<p>You changed your mind.</p>
<p>I reconsidered my decision.</p>
<p>What is the name for this type of cognitive bias where you are easier on yourself when you describe your behavior, but harder on the second person and hardest on others? It's similar to the justification of your actions in certain situations e.g., when someone cuts you off in traffic, he's a jerk. But if you cut someone off it's because you are really in a hurry and it's justified.</p>
<p>But what I'm specifically looking for is the name of the phenomenon where the same behavior/quality of the first, second and third person are described by decreasing levels of charitability.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T19:18:01.563Z
Hypocrisy? Not certain this is on topic here.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-11-01T17:30:24.813Z
Could you please improve the question title for posterity?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-15T03:51:17.923Z
@StevenJeuris What question title would you recommend?
tinkerr
<terminology>
What is the name of this bias or phenomenon?
tinkerr
# What is the name of this bias or phenomenon?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-31)

He lied.

You changed your mind.

I reconsidered my decision.

What is the name for this type of cognitive bias where you are easier on yourself when you describe your behavior, but harder on the second person and hardest on others? It's similar to the justification of your actions in certain situations e.g., when someone cuts you off in traffic, he's a jerk. But if you cut someone off it's because you are really in a hurry and it's justified.

But what I'm specifically looking for is the name of the phenomenon where the same behavior/quality of the first, second and third person are described by decreasing levels of charitability.

**Tags:** terminology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hypocrisy? Not certain this is on topic here.  
> **username_1**: Could you please improve the question title for posterity?  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris What question title would you recommend?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-10-31. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Russell Conjugation (or emotive conjugation).

The tendency of people to regard their own characteristics more charitably than those of others, and to rank others according (at least in part) to proximity to earshot:

> I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.
>
> I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over
> nothing.
>
> I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has
> gone back on his word.

[Eric Weinstein expands:](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181)

> Russell Conjugation (or “emotive conjugation”) is a presently obscure
> construction from linguistics, psychology and rhetoric which
> demonstrates how our rational minds are shielded from understanding
> the junior role factual information generally plays relative to
> empathy in our formation of opinions.
>
> I frequently suggest it as perhaps the most important idea with which
> almost no one seems to be familiar, as it showed me just how easily my
> opinions could be manipulated without any need to falsify facts.
>
> Historically, the idea is not new and seems to have been first defined
> by several examples given by Bertrand Russell in 1948 on the BBC
> without much follow up work, until it was later rediscovered in the
> internet age and developed into a near data-driven science by pollster
> Frank Luntz beginning in the early 1990s.

[Luntz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Use_of_language), a US political and communications consultant:

> Luntz frequently tests word and phrase choices using focus groups and
> interviews. His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing
> audiences to react based on emotion. "80 percent of our life is
> emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested
> in how you feel than how you think. ... If I respond to you quietly,
> the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I
> respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms
> around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a
> freak."


---

