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

181–190 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#181

Post by cardanome »

Zerverus wrote: post #152
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.

Neither world war was caused by bad faith communication nor could have been resolved by any form of communication. This is a hopelessly naive take.

Yes, in times of war the truth and with it good faith communication is one of the first things to go. This is a symptom, not a cause of war.

The view that every conflict can be solved by good faith communication in a for both sides acceptable manner is insane.

If one side wants to murder all people with a certain intrinsic attribute be it race, sexual orientation or whatever and the other side does not want to be murdered, there is no compromise to be made. The people of the first group will never engage in good faith with the later group that they view as subhuman. Any attempt to establish good faith communication will only HURT the later group.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#182

Post by JetAlone »

alexb_ wrote: post #165
barrysteve wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you ever say that? Facebook is suffering a slow death from burning up all it's good will on bad faith money grabs. The news feed could still be the place where people discuss their lives, but close to zero people trust facebook anymore. Mental note: alexb_ will lie to my face.

I'm not saying that is how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is. You earn no sympathy from the audience by only using logic and reason - in order to make change in the world, you must additionally use fallacies, diversions, personal attacks, false equivalencies, and every other trick in the book. If you refuse to use these, you will lose to those who do, every single time. It does not matter how well thought out…

"Guys we have to use any effective tactic possible in the book to win, even lies and cruelty!"

>"You mean like the possible tactic of not posting an open exhortation to lie and be cruel, so as to maintain beneficial optics?"

"..."

You played yourself.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#183

Post by trtqy »

One of the most important parts of the article is a footnote:

NOTE: All signs of good faith communication can be "faked" in bad faith.

Basically, in modern online mob communication, the winning side defines what "good faith" and "bad faith" are. The winning side defines a vague code of conduct, cloaks themselves in "goodness" and then openly uses the "bad faith" slander against anyone who disagrees on any issue (even purely technical ones).

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#184

Post by alexb_ »

JetAlone wrote: post #182
alexb_ wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that is how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is. You earn no sympathy from the audience by only using logic and reason - in order to make change in the world, you must additionally use fallacies, diversions, personal attacks, false equivalencies, and every other trick in the book. If you refuse to use these, you will lose to those who do, every single time. It does not matter how well thought out…

"Guys we have to use any effective tactic possible in the book to win, even lies and cruelty!" >"You mean like the possible tactic of not posting an open exhortation to lie and be cruel, so as to maintain beneficial optics?" "..." You played yourself.

You think I'm playing any side? Of what argument exactly? I'm just telling people how the world is working. I don't really care what you think of me in particular lmao

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#185

Post by prox »

jimkleiber wrote: post #66
chillacy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally use the meta-conversational move a lot, and it usually turns heated political discussions into more thoughtful philosophy discussions. I think because most people don't have such strong identity based beliefs around questions like "how can we know if something is right/true/good/bad, what does that mean?"

The meta-conversation technique blew up for me once. A buddy and I got into it and I went in that direction of how do we know if something is good or bad, right or wrong, and it had him feeling incredibly frustrated and distraught, questioning whether his friends have fundamentally different values than he does. I recognized in that moment he seemed very emotionally vulnerable and so I switched out of my head explora…

That actually sounds like a true philosophical situation, where you both questioned some deeply held beliefs. This can have epistemologically and existential repercussions for the individual, especially if you are emotionally invested (and we always are at some level)

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#186

Post by JetAlone »

alexb_ wrote: post #184
JetAlone wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Guys we have to use any effective tactic possible in the book to win, even lies and cruelty!" >"You mean like the possible tactic of not posting an open exhortation to lie and be cruel, so as to maintain beneficial optics?" "..." You played yourself.

You think I'm playing any side? Of what argument exactly? I'm just telling people how the world is working. I don't really care what you think of me in particular lmao

I looked through some of your comments and I agree with the sentiments expressed in many of them. I had actually already +1'd a small handful of them. I do have to wonder what you actually believe though since, in your pragmatism you have already stated a maxim to sacrifice truth/honesty for power. Regardless of which side(s) you are actually on, you are playing yourself if you are going to live by this model of reality and doubly so if you then go on to openly espouse it. In my absolutist mentality, it is better to be 100% honest, for the sake of the truth, because in it you can prove your trustworthiness to somebody and have a real connection at least with them, even if the whole rest of the world totally sucks. Even if your enemies do cut you down one day through grimy means, you still at least lived some of your life in truth. That's a life worth living. A life spent consciously engaging in dirty tactics is not.

You have said you don't care what I think, but I have little certitude to believe you really mean that, so I will say it; I think you are totally lost until you back up and reconsider this line of reasoning.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#187

Post by TheGigaChad »

colordrops wrote: post #68
tux1968 wrote: post #15

It 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…

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Oscar and Pulitzer prize winning journalist to a pariah and supposed Russian right wing shill, kicked out of the organization he founded, The Intercept. His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, but by doing what you suggest he h…

No post body was provided.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#188

Post by andybak »

usernomdeguerre wrote: post #74
booboofixer wrote: post #4

A 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…

I think some other responders have touched lightly on this but I feel it should be explicitly said that sometimes engaging in conversation is not actually what the other party is doing, even though it might look like it. Sometimes they are not speaking to you at all, but rather to your listeners. And the larger your pool of listeners the more likely you'll encounter arguments in bad faith because it turns out that if…

> if the goal is persuasion then good-faith arguments don't scale

That phrase helps crystalize the concept very nicely.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#189

Post by tome »

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…

> All of them describing knowing their true gender with just as much certainty as you or I know ours from about age 4

Did you? I don’t recall “knowing” my truer gender from age 4. That’s something that I took years to grow into, and didn’t become a question at the fore of my mind until teenage years.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#190

Post by Veen »

throwaway15908 wrote: post #21
ianai wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

You can side step. A common tactic for mediators. Consider a verbal fight within a couple. Everyone wants to have the last word and both throw loudly anything they can come up with at each other. In such a situaiton you may be able to break that mental stance of your opponent by "simply" shifting the topic/perspective to something, they did not expect at all. This way, you may be able to force you opponent to give up…

I find the best tactic in this situation is to let the other party exhaust themselves. You're never going to be heard, so just listen (actually listen, not pretend) until they've got whatever they want to say out, and then make a response that shows you've listened and tried to understand.
Post reply on HN