The endgames of bad faith communication
consilienceproject.org
The endgames of bad faith communication
1–10 of 374 posts
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#2The end game of bad faith communication is that noise begins to dominate the channel.
Humans, reacting to this degradation in signal rely less and less on channels that are dominated by noise.
This opens up opportunities for technology to build new channels, which accumulate users, engagement and momentum by supporting good faith communication (truth).
Thus the cycle continues.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#3What's the difference between "bad faith communication" and just plain old trolling?
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#4A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point.
But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard.
Consider this example: Person A, displaying some humility, says : "You might be right, there is a chance politician X is in the wrong". Person A assumes this is interpreted by Person B as: "There is uncertainty about politician X being in the wrong" Person B actually interprets this as: "Person A has admitted, without any doubt, to politician X being completely in the wrong"
If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate?
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#5What's the difference between "bad faith communication" and just plain old trolling?
Trolling is absolutely a form of bad faith communication. However, you needn't look far on twitter to find that trolls are pretty high hanging fruit compared to ideological flamewars perpetuated by non-trolls fighting to score points for their respective ideological teams.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#6Really good article. Succinctly articulates and categorizes types of online social interactions I've observed over the past decade. I'm guilty of occasionally engaging bad faith communications myself. I'm trying to do better. For a while now I've felt this uneasiness that the escalating social discord we've been seeing over the past ~5 years could have disastrous consequences. I'm starting to think in terms of urgency, this year-over-year escalation of social discord needs to be addressed even before climate change.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#7A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point. But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard. Consider this example: Person A, displaying some…
It’s more basic too. Bad faith redefines the nature of the situation. It’s no longer a conversation and instead a game. And in game theory you have to play on level ground as your opponent. Ie when they go low you have to go low or exit the conversation turned game. “Going high” in modern rhetoric doesn’t actually net strategic advantage.
So maybe that’s insightful. Point out that conversations (unless they’re debates and everyone’s agreed to debate) are not games.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#8"Bad Faith Communication: discourse that is intended to achieve behavioral outcomes (including consensus, agreement, "likes") irrespective of achieving true mutual understanding"
I would argue that nearly all advertisements fit this description. The field of advertising has achieved a massive technological leap over the past few decades.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#9What's the difference between "bad faith communication" and just plain old trolling?
Trolling is absolutely a form of bad faith communication. However, you needn't look far on twitter to find that trolls are pretty high hanging fruit compared to ideological flamewars perpetuated by non-trolls fighting to score points for their respective ideological teams.
Upon further reflection, I realize that there are many "true believers" of one sort or another who aren't trolling but whose minds are completely closed and aren't looking for good faith dialogue but to proselytize their belief or attack those of their opponents.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#10I wish there was a "good faith" up arrow.