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

211–220 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#211

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

gkaly wrote: post #200
watwut wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.

Greenwald (and Tulsi Gabbard) quoted Nuland directly, who admitted that there were biological research labs. Greenwald had previously worked on the Anthrax story of 2001, where a couple of high profile people got sent a sophisticated Anthrax variant in the mail. It was supposed to be foreign terrorism at first, later it was found that the strain came from a U.S. research facility . Biological weapons aren't allowed b…

It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research.

What is being described is beyond that, with thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#212

Post by Vinnl »

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…

> If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate?

The article actually addresses this, and in a good way IMHO (in the paragraph starting "Avoiding social catastrophe"). The reason to both to communicate, in such cases, is to attempt to demonstrate your willingness (and ability!) to engage in good faith, and thereby eventually restoring faith in Person B that good-faith communication is possible.

Note that this is explicitly not an attempt to convince the other party of whatever it is you're arguing about. The goal is not to change their view, but to restore a society in which discussion about those views in good faith is at least possible again.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#213

Post by nicbou »

antisthenes wrote: post #14
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…

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…

I find that it depends on the size of the community, and your stake in that community. If you're a regular somewhere, you're a lot less likely to start some shit there. After a while some users earn a reputation that affects all future interactions.

I treat my local subreddit like I would treat my local pub, especially since I know a few of its users IRL, and many tie my username to my business. I can't say the same about large subreddits.

Tight moderation also helps a ton. It enforces a certain tone, and after a while the community crystallises around that tone and enforces it itself. You don't pick fights at the country club.

I realise now that I stopped interacting in larger communities. I prefer quieter channels where people have a reputation to uphold.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#214

Post by projektfu »

I see a dynamic on Twitter a lot where a person who is probably aligned with the retweeter is thrown under the bus to demonstrate the purity of the retweeter. The retweeted person is usually misrepresented or uncharitable interpreted.

Why so much friendly fire? It is hard to imagine we can truly heal discourse across a political divide when we cannot even do nice to our neighbors on the spectrum.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#215

Post by chiefalchemist »

> Bad faith communication has become normalized.

Like it or not, believe it or not, this is true of all actors. (In the USA) it's not just Team Red, or Team Blue. Both have become masters of the slight of information hand (i.e., propaganda).

If you choose to go binary and take sides then at least try to avoid hyprocricy and hold your side to the same standards you hold the other.

At the moment, bad faith comms and hyprocricy go hand in hand.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#216

Post by jseban »

I think the issue is trying to have individualism, and team work at the same time.

Good performance is team effort, bad performance is 100% individual. Seems to create incentives similar to an ultimatum game. If you work together you get nothing, the only strategy that will serve your own interest, is to step on other people.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#217

Post by slackfan »

An article on bad faith communication, hilariously, displaying some bad faith communication traits.

Its almost like communication is a complex subject and boiling it down to a binary good/bad state is an utterly reductionist way of thinking.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#219

Post by Vinnl »

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…

I would think "calling out" is, or often takes the form of, exactly the type of bad faith communication that this article is trying to argue against (possibly categorised under "Undue social pressure" or "Villainization").

Engaging in a good-faith argument, especially with those you often agree with, yes. "Calling out" - I'd be hesitant about that.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#220

Post by notahacker »

XorNot wrote: post #107
switchbak wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This explains why those in the middle receive the most aggression: they're traitors AND hated by both extremes. Whether you want to or not, as things get more polarized, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain any kind of nuanced position.

Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition. It's solely defined by the sides in opposition. There's a real and important difference between holding positions which make you "roughly" at the center of apparent sides, and the apparent holding of positions because "moderate" or "centrist" is being held up as a virtue. And that last part is key: at the point where people are arguing that they are moderate, rat…

"Centrism" is every bit as real as "right wing" or "left wing", both positions also defined in different contexts by what is to the left/right of them. And people can be as genuinely enthusiastic in principle and detail about "a market, but a heavily regulated one" as they can about "the government has no business interfering in markets" or "private profiteers can't be allowed to exploit this resource". Or indeed hold a particular "right wing" or "left wing" position purely because they believe that agreeing with their tribe or expressing the appropriate degree of vehemence of disagreement with the other tribes makes them more virtuous.

There's a certain amount of irony in dismissing a entire range of political opinion as uniquely susceptible to "trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter" under an article about bad faith communication.

Post reply on HN