Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The endgames of bad faith communication

consilienceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#111

Post by senguidev »

Here's an alternative ending: what if good faith communication was superior to bad faith in a systemic way ?

Clues:

- at a personal level: have you ever tried to put in practice "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" ? If you did, you've probably noted that more often than not, it doesn't make you weaker. It increases your value, your status, even your financial success. So maybe this could also be a contagious/unstoppable strategy simply because it has an edge for personal success ?

- as an organization: good faith leadership, good faith communication... seem to overall be a competitive advantage because it goes hand-in-hand with happy & productive people

- as a society: democracy emerged despite a world of tyrants to take over most a the world. Why ? Maybe because it was stronger in a systemic way ? It unlocks collaboration, decentralization, resilience... Moreover, it doesn't sound unreasonable that democracy would be fittest as poverty diminishes. So maybe authoritarianism, not democracy, is in danger of extinction in the end ?

Result: instead of spiraling bad faith, maybe we will have (though slower) spiraling good faith ? Maybe "good faith" will win simply because it's stronger, in a kind of evolutionary sense.

This has implications in everyday life : practicing "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" may be the best way to personal success. And this may also be the best way to incidentally induce a "good faith" society

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#112

Post by dalbasal »

lucidbee wrote: post #85

I have realized when browsing some twitter culture war exchanges that people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments. They imagine a set of arguments that uses some of the same words and then argue with that. This type of exchange never results in agreement -- or even the exchange of information! It's unhinged from any communicative act. It's merely inflammatory. I do think this is extremely problemati…

Addressing opposing arguments directly is not really a feature of arguing. That kind of good faith debate is more of a special case debate.

It's just not what public debate is. You see rookie politicians do it, but it's generally a mistake.

A huge part of what political debate is, is dominating the frame. The frame. The key facts, alternative or otherwise. The key question being debated.

Once those are established, the conclusion tends to be trivial.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#113

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #94
rad88 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't control the outcome of a conversation, and cynicism goes hand in hand with bad faith. Communication is still the most awesome thing that humans do, or will ever be able to do!

That's some serious pom-pom action you just did. There are times when bad faith communication is just a waste of everyone's time. It's great to think that by having a conversation positive results will occur. However, that's not always going to happen. Since I'm not part of a diplomatic entourage where the mere act of continuing to talk past each other is seen as a positive, that same behavior does not tend to benefi…

[deleted]

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#114

Post by LambdaTrain »

lucidbee wrote: post #85

I have realized when browsing some twitter culture war exchanges that people almost never respond to the opposing party's arguments. They imagine a set of arguments that uses some of the same words and then argue with that. This type of exchange never results in agreement -- or even the exchange of information! It's unhinged from any communicative act. It's merely inflammatory. I do think this is extremely problemati…

It goes far beyond twitter culture. Even in daily conversation there are people who only open out port and close in port. One signal is that whenever you bring up a perspective (either in support/disagreement) this person gonna continue his speech and make the conversation expereince like attending a lecture.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#115

Post by legalcorrection »

tempestn wrote: post #109
legalcorrection wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposition to homosexuality and racial integration did not disappear in America, but they substantially waned. Even the minority of people that privately hold opposite sentiments, they will not express them publicly for fear not just of public condemnation and private sanction but also legal liability. Consider that in 2008, a majority of the country opposed gay marriage, but in 2022, a majority support and it is con…

FWIW, I agree that 4-5 year old transgender kids are something that strike most people as absurd. That is, unless they know some transgender people and talk to them about their experiences. I have a couple of close friends who are trans, and know several others (including a good friend of my son's in elementary school). All of them describing knowing their true gender with just as much certainty as you or I know ours…

I really appreciate the substantive comment. I disagree, but I don't think it's worth arguing about here. My point really doesn't have anything to do with the merits or demerits of young childhood gender transitions. Fact is, it's a position held by a minority, but the majority is powerless to do anything about it because they are absolutely terrified of the left's political power. They're afraid to even say something about it. Certain political groups are getting close to completely transcending the liberal democratic truce.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#116

Post by q-base »

senguidev wrote: post #111

Here's an alternative ending: what if good faith communication was superior to bad faith in a systemic way ? Clues: - at a personal level: have you ever tried to put in practice "highly skilled, non-naive good faith communication" ? If you did, you've probably noted that more often than not, it doesn't make you weaker. It increases your value, your status, even your financial success. So maybe this could also be a co…

I hope your analysis is correct. On a personal level I have found it to work just as you describe, but on a more systemic higher level I am not yet convinced - I hope - but I am sadly not convinced.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#117

Post by watwut »

number6 wrote: post #105
Nowado wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing your opponent position lets them pick what the topic is. They are picking a topic their position is strong at. Therefore addressing your opponent position in limited-attention setting (aka publicly) is simply a losing move.

So the only wining move is not to play?

No, if you dont play, then your opponent point of view is the only one out there. People will move their opinions to match your opponents more.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#118

Post by endominus »

rocqua wrote: post #96
endominus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are, in my opinion, two problems with that. The first is that it is very, very difficult for most people to view their own side objectively. The Russel conjugation comes to mind; "I am a freedom fighter, you are a rebel, he is a terrorist." The other problem is that often, calling out your own side's bad behavior feels like treachery. "When arguments become soldiers, to criticize your own sides' points is to st…

I think the 'critisize your own is backstabbing' thought is much less relevant in private discussion, and that might be where it's most possible to call out and change compatriots who engage in bad-faith communication.

In high-trust social circles, certainly. But the risk of reputational damage still exists when using these channels; this is how whisper networks destroy people seen as insufficiently dedicated to the Cause. Criticize the wrong person or do so insensitively, do it to a person with an outsized ego, and you may find yourself ostracized. Jo Freeman's essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness well describes how such power imbalances can occur and how people suspected of insufficient loyalty can be informally but firmly removed from the decision-making of a group.

This is, after all, why virtue signalling is such a common tactic. It shores up reputational defense against such accusations. Unfortunately, it also commonly has the effect of further deepening the divide between the group and other parties who might otherwise be interested in the Cause, as the most valuable signalling techniques require costly actions - i.e. ones that are materially or socially damaging to the member doing said signalling. This may affirm loyalty, but often harms proselytization efforts (you cannot advance the Cause to your family if you have cut off contact with them for not already being part of the Cause, for example).

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#119

Post by bjt »

If you want to see some great examples of politicians engaging in good faith communication, check out the series "The Constitution: That Delicate Balance" that Annenberg put out in 1984.

I wish they'd repeat it with new participants. I'm not sure which politicians I can imagine taking part though. It does seem like we've declined from the level of discourse shown there.

https://www.learner.org/series/the-constitution-that-delicat...

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#120

Post by Nowado »

number6 wrote: post #105
Nowado wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing your opponent position lets them pick what the topic is. They are picking a topic their position is strong at. Therefore addressing your opponent position in limited-attention setting (aka publicly) is simply a losing move.

So the only wining move is not to play?

There seems to be an assumption that the opponent isn't a competent player. They might be.

The winning move is to seem like the winning side of discourse in their space.

The truly winning move is to own a media conglomerate including social psychology people in communications.

Post reply on HN