The endgames of bad faith communication

Yes, I agree if the person is trying to manipulate you then it'd make sense to label their intentions as bad faith. I guess I choose to believe that people have good intentions even underneath their bad intentions because I feel more at ease and less afraid that way.

> Because people's intentions and beliefs are not the same as their actions and the actual impact of those actions on others. It should be the case that if we have good intentions, we take good actions and our actions have good impact on others. But unfortunately it isn't always the case.

I agree with you that good intentions, or as I'd say, intending to help someone, doesn't always equate to good results, or doesn't mean the person won't feel harmed. I think I get stuck on "bad faith" because from how I understand the phrase, and how the American Heritage Dictionary defines it[0], is "the malicious intention to be dishonest or to violate the law, as in negotiations over a contract." In other words, having bad intentions.

However, as I see the long article on Wikipedia, I'm just realizing that many fields seem to define it differently, from insurance law to Zen Buddhism, to feminism and negotiation theory[1].

EDIT: This has me reflecting on why I'm engaging in this thread. Am I trying to convince you and others that labeling "bad faith" will likely be more harmful and less effective in resolving conflict? If so, am I engaging in "bad faith" communication because I'm trying to convince you of my perspective and not fully understand your perspective? I think I feel very confident in resolving conflict and yet often slip back into such a mindset of trying to "teach" people things, instead of just letting them do what they want to do. In a way, this can be what trips me up the most: I believe I have found ways to communicate that can really help people in conflict, but instead of using those skills with people, I can default into teaching them those skills, even when they don't necessarily want to be taught. With that in mind, I find that some of these conversations on conflict resolution technique frustrate me because it seems that we, the ones who talk about them, often feel very confident in our approaches and may try to convince the others to do it the way that seems to work for us, even if the others don't want to learn.

This thread has helped me realize how I want to get much more intentional about explicitly asking people if they want to learn how I approach conversations and conflict, and creating environments where that consent is more clear to everyone, and in the other spaces doing the skills rather than talking about them.

Was this "bad faith" communication on my part? I think my intention is good in wanting to help people feel more confident in communicating in conflict and resolving it. But perhaps the effect matters more and I still feel lost on the approach they take in their article and maybe that's OK. I keep trying to remind myself: more loving, less saving. I think I have a tendency to jump in and "save" people when they don't necessarily want to be saved.

Anyways, I'm grateful that you went back and forth with me on this and I feel excited to much more express how I'm feeling and how I approach things and explicitly say how it's OK if other people want to do it different ways.

[0]: http://www.wordnik.com/words/bad%20faith

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

The parent commenter wrote that "good-faith arguments don't scale". I don't agree with that, because good-faith arguments do scale with social capital. People often run afoul of several problems that make it seem like they don't:

- Their reach exceeds their grasp: they want to persuade strangers, but don't have enough social capital to pull it off.

- They think they're involved in a good-faith discussion or argument, but the other participants are competing for status or trying to entertain themselves (or others).

In other words, I don't think good-faith arguments are the only way to persuade people, but if that's your preferred technique, you have to develop credibility, respect, and trust - on top of building an audience, which is a whole different matter.

That sounds cynical, but what I mean is this:

- Steelmanning the “enemy position” indicates that your argument takes into account all of the nuance of the “enemy position”

- It indicates that you’re arguing in good faith, and not going for an easy win

In other words,

- Steelmanning indicates: “I have looked at the problem space, and this position fits it the best.”

- Strawmanning indicates: “I will present the problem space in a way that fits this position the best.”

Subtle, but important and gives you a lot of credibility as a speaker.