Is it just me, or are all of the listed bad faith communication mannerisms rife in government and the legal profession? I no longer trust the rule of law, because everyone involved acts in bad faith. From police, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats… my experience has shown that are all untrustworthy in anything they say. The fish rots from the head.
The endgames of bad faith communication
11–20 of 374 posts
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#12[deleted]
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#13What's the difference between "bad faith communication" and just plain old trolling?
Trolling often involves bad faith communication, but bad faith communication isn't necessarily trolling. Consider politicians, salespeople, and advertisers who are willing to convince by any means possible.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#14A 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 debate…
Does digitization remove the negative consequences of communicating in bad faith?
In that sense, does it change the game, just through removing those consequences and thus making bad faith a more attractive strategy than it would be otherwise (e.g. face to face reputation based communication)?
Maybe you are right and positing it as a game is itself reductive, and gets people into a zero-sum mindset, rather than viewing conversation as a win-win.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#15It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques. Especially, and most importantly, when those bad actors are of the same political stripe.
It's impossible for those bad actors to hear criticism from "the enemy". Only people who share a position of almost total fundamental agreement, can maybe be heard in any criticism of how to better deal with the opposition.
TLDR: We should be most aggressive and loud in criticism of those we agree with most.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#16To say nothing of communication issues caused by social media users themselves, the platforms can have built-in miscommunication. For example, on reddit your removed comments are shown to you as if they are live, as shown here [1]. You can try it yourself in r/CantSayAnything [2].
You can be having a conversation with someone that suddenly stops because a 3rd party removed the last reply. Often, neither of the speakers is aware this happened, making it appear to each as if the other ghosted the discussion.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#17There is no room for a truce. To oversimplify it, liberal democracy was basically a 200 year armistice between liberals and conservatives. Now, both sides see the imminent prospect of either final defeat or final victory. The only thing that matters is winning. On this, both sides are right.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#18"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.
Or religions, traditions, cultures, political slogans and reductionisms of apply sorts. Essentially, anything that fits within the realm of the Noble Lie.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#19> many still assert that it is actually unethical to engage "the other side" in good faith.
Not everybody on "the other side" is communicating in bad faith, but some are. (Same with "your own side".) When someone is communicating in bad faith, I don't think it's "unethical" to engage them in good faith, I think it's foolhardy.
Don't feed the trolls. For dog's sake don't assume you can change the trolls.
One of the HN guidelines is "assume good faith". But many arguments presented here are made in bad faith. There are certain topics which in my view, cannot be intelligently discussed on HN because you are not allowed to assume bad faith.
What's missing from this article is how to protect yourself from bad faith actors.
(I've deliberately written this so that it could apply to "either side". Take that as an attempt to engage in good faith.)
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 debate…
Does digitization remove the negative consequences of communicating in bad faith? In that sense, does it change the game , just through removing those consequences and thus making bad faith a more attractive strategy than it would be otherwise (e.g. face to face reputation based communication)? Maybe you are right and positing it as a game is itself reductive, and gets people into a zero-sum mindset, rather than view…
"Social media made y'all way to comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." - Mike Tyson