The endgames of bad faith communication • Hacker News Board

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#151

Post by watwut » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:52 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #133

watwut wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CNN and MSNBC won't have him on despite him being willing to interview. The majority of journalists and opinion writers wont ever be on CNN and MSNBC. Overwhelming majority of them, in fact. > Every journalist has a particular topic and audience that they focus on. His topic and audience is around waking up left wingers to the bad behavior of the "their own side". Well, in that case, he is massive failure. Probably…

Glenn Greenwald is worthy of being on CNN and MSNBC, and has been on before, but mysteriously was no longer invited once he started criticizing the liberal establishment. Hmm.. And in-fighting is not the same as calling out the corrupt elite that maintain the Overton window of what most blue journalists and politicians speak about.

Overwhelming majority of journalists is "worthy" of that. But, Glenn Greenwald seemed to be mostly emotional bundle last years as I was watching him. And completely unable to handle any pushback or criticism back - responding with pure insults and anger half the time.

I used to like him and respect him, which is why I was following him. It was not other peoples criticism of Greenwald that made me loose respect to him. People I normally follow dont comment on Greenwald. It was him.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#152

Post by Zerverus » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:52 AM UTC

alexb_ wrote: post #149

This article is great at explaining many differences between good and bad faith communication, but repeatedly asserts that bad communication = wars, violence, etc while providing no proof or argument to support that claim. In reality, we are in a world where there is absolutely 0 reason to be arguing in good faith for anything you truly care about. The most effective way you convince people of something is using all…

One only needs to look at the spiral leading to both world wars to see that there is absolutely a good reason to communicate in good faith.

Tragedy of the commons right here.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#153

Post by watwut » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:52 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #100

threatofrain wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...

Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor…

Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#154

Post by daedalus_f » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:55 AM UTC

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #145

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…

Good faith communication is maladaptive on large scale Imagine the war scenario. The honest, good-faith communication would be like: If we capitulate outright, the worst thing that happens is paying taxes to somewhere else, and the set of faces on TV news will change to a different set of faces. Anyway, please go and die to prevent that from happening, while the people who have the most at stake hide in safety It's n…

> The honest, good-faith communication would be like…

Perhaps I don’t understand your point, but the experiences of people in the states annexed by the Soviet Union would beg to differ.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#155

Post by m12k » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:55 AM UTC

thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #145

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…

Good faith communication is maladaptive on large scale Imagine the war scenario. The honest, good-faith communication would be like: If we capitulate outright, the worst thing that happens is paying taxes to somewhere else, and the set of faces on TV news will change to a different set of faces. Anyway, please go and die to prevent that from happening, while the people who have the most at stake hide in safety It's n…

We're seeing the opposite play out in real time in Ukraine though. One side tells its soldiers that they are fighting a desperate battle to repel an invading dictator. The other side tells its soldiers that they are going on a training exercise in Belarus, then shoves them across the border telling them they will be welcomed as liberators, then finally switches to some handwavy explanation about nazis. The latter has massively worse morale and battlefield performance than the former.

And not only that, the bad-faith communication goes back decades, and the equipment the invaders are fighting with is in disrepair because local administrators and subcontractors have been lying to those in charge while pocketing maintenance funds. We're seeing, in a massive way, the havoc that a culture of deceit wreaks on any organization or society's ability to function coherently.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#156

Post by dclowd9901 » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:56 AM UTC

The problem isn’t the prominence of bad faith communication. That’s a symptom. Bad faith communicating happens because one party becomes cornered when their standpoint is indefensible, and they know it.

Once one side renounces good faith communication, the other sees no point in maintaining communication in good faith, so they throw it away too. So the problem isn’t communicating in bad faith. By the time you’ve gotten there, the battle for good faith communication was already lost.

The problem is pride, plain and simple. If people could detach themselves from their views and not make being wrong anything more than that, then we could once again open the door to good faith communication.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#157

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:56 AM UTC

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…

That's just it, neither side goes to Twitter for a good faith argument, they're there to vent and lash out, but they've already dismissed the other party.

I mean not always, but I do wonder if the posts that LOOK like they're in good faith are also misleading as such.

Best thing to do is to not spend the energy. Don't engage with anyone if they don't have an open mind or are acting in bad faith. If it's more neutral, you can always ask "What will it take you to change your mind?"; the answer of that will determine if it's worth spending energy on. And the answer to that could be done in bad faith as well - for example, if the other says "I will change my mind if I see a scientific paper disproving me", but then proceeds to not actually read any scientific paper sent to them, they were acting in bad faith all along.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#158

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:58 AM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #146

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…

My main concern in online discussions is that you're effectively arguing against a hydra. Even if you successfully convince a group of people about the validity of a specific point, there will always be someone else who will show up to continue arguing (often, as you say, with a completely different argument). And if someone successfully convinces me that my argument was wrong, there is no way for me to declare the p…

It's my personal belief that the endless arguing as you describe is the main point of Twitter for a lot of people; they're not there to settle an argument or to have their mind changed, they're there for the heated discussions.

And I kinda get it, I was there for it as well and to this day will make shitposts on the internet with no intent to actually engage with any replies <_<

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#159

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 7:59 AM UTC

LambdaTrain wrote: post #114

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.

Tongue in cheek, I'd call that "racist uncle at thanksgiving".

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#160

Post by PeterisP » Tue, Apr 12, 2022, 8:00 AM UTC

LambdaTrain wrote: post #124

dalbasal wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I am not familiar with public debate. Before two persons start a public debate, is it a common assumption that you are going to hold your ground till the end, whatever the information provided by the opponent? There is no flow of information and I could not see this form of acts as "communication" - it seems to be more like a kind of art/show/performance.

The goal of a public debate is to influence the perception of the many passive listeners, not the few other participants of the debate; There is extensive flow of information/communication, but it's simply not aimed towards the other participants of the debate.

So a key part of such debates becomes influencing or provoking others to talk about things that advance your cause and avoiding discussion of things that hurt it. E.g. if someone says "you eat babies" and you respond with extensive evidence that you don't, then that public debate becomes a debate about you being a baby-eater and not whatever you wanted to promote.