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

311–320 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#311

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

mistermann wrote: post #286
watwut wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. If he wanted to make historical point about Antrax, he did not had to make it in context of Ukraine. If he wanted to make point about bioresearch…

> The jump from "bioresearch lab" which to bioweapons. Making it sound as if there was something to "admit" in Ukraine having same labs as everyone has. Then you try to confuse it with bioweapons, anthrax attacks in America and completely irrelevant treaties about bioweapons. Who is it that's actually doing the confusing here? It's certainly possible that Greenwald is dog-whistling "bioresearch lab" into "bioweapons"…

As a third party, I can weigh in to eliminate some of the ambiguity you're worried about:

It seems like the views you're replying to, match reality (Greenwald is indeed spreading FUD about something which is totally normal), and, I'm sorry, you are coming across as incomprehensible

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#313

Post by bkirkby »

jccalhoun wrote: post #312

Yes, arguing in good faith is good but how do you deal with people who have no interest in arguing in good faith? I encounter this all the time and I just choose to stop engaging.

i've taken a clue from Jessica Livingston. she responded once to bad faith communicators by saying (not a quote): "i'm not inclined to engage with people who are purposefully trying to misunderstand me."

it both disengages you from the situation while also calling out the bad faith actors.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#314

Post by outsidetheparty »

kodah wrote: post #309

> Both ends of the political spectrum (the far left and the far right) express this view. Both sides believe that “the other side” simply can’t be trusted and therefore cannot be engaged in good faith. To do so would be to fall into a trap, serving only to validate the dangerous views of groups known to be acting in bad faith. This is what I'm most tired of. Anytime you try to point this out one of these two groups w…

It's interesting that you're making a both-sides argument while complaining about people making both-sides arguments. I mostly hear "both sides, both sides" coming from one side in particular. The other side just blames that one side.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#315

Post by adamisom »

pohl wrote: post #306

This was a great article. A practical question came to mind while reading it: Now that bad-faith communication has become normalized, does it makes sense to keep bringing good-faith communication to a bad-faith communication fight? Obviously it would be ideal to model the behavior that we'd like to see in the world, but what if this toothpaste can't be put back into the tube? Brandolini's Law suggests that this might…

I think it does make sense. I love this relevant classic SSC article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-c...

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#316

Post by motohagiography »

tappio wrote: post #310

Can someone point me to an example of a society where good faith communication has dominated? This article paints a picture that the issue is something new, but I don't know any human society where bad faith communication was not a norm. Differences are mainly related to power structures and who holds the Power to communicate. Besides, this is really a dualist perspective to communication. What if most communication…

Examples I would use would be sports teams, construction teams, hunting groups, military units, sailing crews, fraternal organizations, and other environents that apprehend consequences from playing games. These are environments where competence and integrity are moral virtues, and misrepresentation has real consequences.

Good faith communication is not the norm in bureaucracies, institutions, large cities, and other environments where there are no significant or collective consequences to being misleading.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#317

Post by spaetzleesser »

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…

“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"”

Reminds me of a discussion with a neighbor. I was talking about things I didn’t like Obama or Biden had done. His response was “see? Should have voted for Trump”. He didn’t understand at all when I told him that Trump is even more wrong in my opinion. People are trained to totally agree or disagree with one side.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#318

Post by deadpannini »

TimPC wrote: post #304

Steelmanning is a bad idea that needs to go away. It’s pretty condescending to say “your argument was bad I fixed it for you”. It’s also confusing when someone tries to improve an argument before responding to it. Lastly, steelmanning done poorly changes an argument into something that’s easier to respond to without necessarily improving it. It might be a good concept for academic debates in ivory towers. In general,…

There's a risk that steel-manning can veer into condescension, but the real goal is to find a version of an argument that all parties agree represents it accurately and fairly.

(As opposed to wasting time on superficial contradictions, reductio ad absurdum variations, and other hazards of bad faith conflicts.)

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#319

Post by kodah »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #314
kodah wrote: post #309

> Both ends of the political spectrum (the far left and the far right) express this view. Both sides believe that “the other side” simply can’t be trusted and therefore cannot be engaged in good faith. To do so would be to fall into a trap, serving only to validate the dangerous views of groups known to be acting in bad faith. This is what I'm most tired of. Anytime you try to point this out one of these two groups w…

It's interesting that you're making a both-sides argument while complaining about people making both-sides arguments. I mostly hear "both sides, both sides" coming from one side in particular. The other side just blames that one side.

I'm complaining about people who refuse to deal with the fact that these two groups cannot meet in the middle on a single thing. Everything is life and death, or some dramatic replay of a day time soap.

I'm not complaining about people making both sides arguments.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#320

Post by AlexCoventry »

pohl wrote: post #306

This was a great article. A practical question came to mind while reading it: Now that bad-faith communication has become normalized, does it makes sense to keep bringing good-faith communication to a bad-faith communication fight? Obviously it would be ideal to model the behavior that we'd like to see in the world, but what if this toothpaste can't be put back into the tube? Brandolini's Law suggests that this might…

The article implies that there are productive ways to engage a bad-faith interlocutor in good faith. It's a shame it doesn't go into any details about what that looks like.
Post reply on HN