A certain type of uncertain uncertainty

Some people say things as clearly as one could and then end with "I hope that makes sense".

Make a strong argument with a clear focus and then say "I don't know maybe I'm just rambling".

I wish more people had the confidence to acknowledge when they are actually making good arguments and understood that humility isn't always appropriate.

Whereas the people with the weakest arguments tend to be loud and over-confident, it's ironic that many with actually some sense would unnecessarily undercut themselves due to self-doubt. Epistemic humility is not being uncertain about everything, it's knowing what you know, and acknowledging what you may not. It doesn't mean also being uncertain about what you do know.

There's a difference between making the scope and probability of your claims a part of the claims themselves (e.g. "I am mostly certain that sometimes...") and undercutting even your already qualified claim with doubt that is not epistemic but psychological. While the former is about accurately representing the truth, the latter brings to focus to how one feels about the argument instead.

The former also qualifies uncertainty and scope based on specific reasons, e.g. saying "sometimes X happens" instead of "X happens" to be clear about how often X actually happens. It's also clear exactly what the uncertainty or limitation of scope is actually about. The latter, on the other hand, simply assumes some vague uncertainty into existence, the nature of which is also unclear.

"Oh but you're also hedging so much in this very post"

If you thought that, you didn't understand my point. Every little "tends to" or "sometimes" or "some people" I used here is intentional. I said some people are like that because most people who I think make good arguments don't unnecessarily undermine what they say psychologically, for example. Not adding the "some" would simply be a lie. Such language is often called "hedging", but I used those terms to clarify the scope of what I'm saying. What I did criticize is unnecessary hedging, and vague psychological uncertainty that doesn't contribute to clarifying the claim itself.

A characterization of uncertainty and scope that is not made explicit, as in the case of psychological doubt, can itself be seen as a hidden assumption that is not grounded in reason. If one is so uncertain about their claim, where does all this certainty about the uncertainty of the claim come from?