I am a pretty big advocate for good faith communication and think the article is right that it is necessary. The thing that disheartens me though, is the asymmetric nature of the problem: good faith communication is hard. It takes time and patience. Bad faith communication is easy. You can write 20 bad faith drive by comments in the time it takes to post one thoughtful reply. And due to the wide open nature of most of these platforms you're rarely interacting with the same person twice. So it's hard not to feel that that effort is entirely going to waste.
The endgames of bad faith communication
51–60 of 374 posts
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how does one actually know whether another or oneself is using good faith communication? By what goal is to be achieved. That's how the article defines the two categories. In a nutshell, good faith communication has the goal of mutual understanding, whether it leads to "agreement" or to the other person doing what you want or not. Bad faith communication has the goal of getting the other person to do what you want,…
> In a nutshell, good faith communication has the goal of mutual understanding, whether it leads to "agreement" or to the other person doing what you want or not. Bad faith communication has the goal of getting the other person to do what you want, by hook or by crook. But who defines what the goal is? I guess I'm confused as if this is more about a self-reflection question: "Am I trying to come to mutual understandi…
> who defines what the goal is?
The person doing the communication. So if that's you, you ask yourself the self-reflection question. If it's the other person, you have to try to figure out what their goal is in communicating with you: are they trying to achieve mutual understanding, or are they trying to get you to do what they want by hook or by crook?
Of course any actual conversation is two-way, so you need to ask both questions.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#53It 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…
I agree with this, but in spaces where bad faith is the predominant form of communication, you'll probably be accused of being a centrist for not falling exactly in line.
You'll be called much much worse than that. IME, you'll be lumped into the "other side" as defined by each of the bad faith participants. And if you point out their bad faith intent and rhetorical games, the level of ad hominem attacks increases exponentially.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#54> 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…
When someone posts completely wrong interpretations of events, a world view totally opposite reality and incompatible with the one you experience it’s really hard to think someone can actually be posting in good faith. And it’s not a case of blue dress gold dress sense type perception difference. Yet there’s a good chunk of people posting incompatible realities, do you ever think that maybe it’s not them living in a…
Most often when I perceive people on "my own side" as engaging in bad faith I sense they've made an "ends justify the means" calculation. I sense that they feel like they are deploying sketchy arguments in service of a greater truth.
I assume that it's the same for "the other side".
There are others who are truly at odds with reality (in fact that's more common), but they don't have the same vibe.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#55A 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…
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"
I think you intended Person A to be someone with an opposing view. But I read this Person A as a friend that strongly likes Politician X, and in some ways that seemed even more appropriate to what the article is talking about. Especially if "politician X" is something like a controversial issue that is strongly moralized. People often end up outwardly adopting an almost Manichean set of opinions on things, even if our internal beliefs are more nuanced. So we end up saying Politician X is perfect, even if we have more mixed opinions. It's not Bad Faith communication in the same vein as a troll on a forum, we're acting in bad faith to maintain cohesion and membership among our own social group.
The OP articulates this well in a paragraph:
A key feature of escalating extremism is a belief that group membership requires bad faith engagements with out-groups. In these contexts, bad faith behavior is often justified to maintain in-group membership and consensus. The normalization of bad faith communication contributes to the creation of extreme in-group pressures, which can rupture identities and exacerbate mental health crises. Personal instabilities usually lead to a doubling down on the need for group membership, increasing rationalizations and amplifications of bad faith practices.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#56> 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…
You just don't engage with them, or engage selectively. If someone wants to engage in bad faith, you politely end the discussion, and introduce distance into the relationship. You're not required to provide any explanation or attempt at rehabilitation, but I find that most people aren't operating in bad faith 100% of the time -- they have trigger topics which are emotionally charged and will put them into that mode. So you can first avoid those topics, and if they keep bringing those topics up, eventually you avoid them.
None of this is a silver bullet fix for the overall problem threatening society, but I doubt there is one, the only solution is for enough people to figure this out and start insisting on a better form of discourse in their own sphere of influence.
The pollution of the public square in recent years has prompted me to put more energy into actively managing my personal network, where I can maintain standards. Participating in social media is like fishing in a polluted river. You might find a good fish, reel them in, and transfer them to your pond. But usually you won't, and overall the ROI of this stuff is pretty low. (In places where it has declined the most, like Facebook, the platform's user engagement is declining too.)
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#57What's the difference between "bad faith communication" and just plain old trolling?
"Plain old trolling" in the traditional sense (e.g. back with newsgroups) is seeking to provoke an emotional reaction, but without regard to the truth of falsity of the statement, and not necessarily with any grander agenda.
It was only later that it came to be (mis?)applied toward organized disinformation campaigns.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#58> 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…
"Don't feed the trolls" was an important rule in old message boards that seems to have been lost in modern social media.
So true. I assume it's because modern social media is monetized so much more, so the incentive is to encourage any and all engagement, including troll feeding.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#59At this stage I just reject communication anyway, I am never going to reach some dumb compromise with conservatives, [homo,trans]-phobes, racists, oligarch supporters, climate change deniers etc. In my view they are morally, ethically, scientifically wrong so there is absolutely nothing constructive to even engage with. I don't think the fundamental problem is:
>wow if only you just were good faith and were able to engage with these people!
They are fundamentally opposed to everything I stand for. I don't think communication is possible. Maybe there are unaligned or uniformed people that are still to pick, but the only solution is actually building a better society, and one side winning.
Re: The endgames of bad faith communication
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the hard part. How do you engage in good faith when everyone else seems to be engaging in bad faith tactics? How can you be open to changing your mind when no one else is open to changing theirs? Seems like you immediately lose every time. I believe strongly in these good faith tactics, and I use them to engage with people I vehemently disagree with. Because of this I have a deeper understanding of th…
Besides really not liking the good/bad faith categorization as I described in another comment, another thing I think this article misses is the personal benefit of communicating more openly with someone else. I feel much more relaxed and proud when I open up and tell someone what I'm feeling and why I think I believe what I do than when I insult them for their beliefs. It may not "win" the argument and it may not eve…
> Anyway, I could talk about this stuff for days, it's what I do for work, teaching myself and others how to communicate to better resolve such conflict.
How do you approach conflict resulting from bad faith interaction? How do you deescalate such conflict?