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

171–180 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#171

Post by narag »

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…

It's not foolish. Aldous Huxley explained why in his Ends and Means, more than eighty years ago.

Ends don't justify means. On the contrary, if the only way to achieve some end are nefarious means, it's a very strong signal that the end itself is not as desirable as it seems.

Most times, people sell their souls only to find later that they can't get what they paid for.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#172

Post by paradite »

hans1729 wrote: post #164
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…

Game theory 101. You want to build a good/better world? Then don't be shit. Don't contribute to shit dynamics. Build a sustainable culture where people listen to each other. I'll never get how this isn't ingrained to reasonable people from the get-go

There might be only one Pareto Optimal solution, but there can be many Nash Equilibrium solutions.

Also, humans are not 100% rational agents.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#173

Post by kubanczyk »

Slighted wrote: post #138

This is an extremely dangerous (and quite frankly stupid) way of thinking. Discourse is discourse, regardless of how you feel about it. When people feel as though "bad" faith discourse needs to be controlled through curation, censorship, or through some other means, you end up with idiots like Twitters Parag Agrawal saying things like "Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a hea…

Yes, all these "bad faiths" and "good faiths" just add confusion. As is using the word "communication" for unidirectional propagation of information.

The article should go deeper with that MAD line of thought. A step forward is a strategic arms limitation treaty, where all the sides agree to ban the most effective forms of propagation.

The goal would be to put back the steer of our ship into the water, bit by bit.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#174

Post by Cthulhu_ »

m12k wrote: post #155
thow-58d4e8b wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ukraine was morally indefensible from the start, as was the Nazi invasion of Europe; with the latter though, they had captured the "hearts and minds" of their own people thanks to over a decade of increasing propaganda. Hitler pulled Germany from an economic downturn post-WW2, and the showy militaristic theming really got people excited. And it still does, but for a much smaller demographic - current-day nazis like the combat boots and flags too.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#175

Post by q-base »

senguidev wrote: post #131
q-base wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your analysis is correct. On a personal level I have found it to work just as you describe, but on a more systemic higher level I am not yet convinced - I hope - but I am sadly not convinced.

Yeah, this is understandable. TBH I'm still trying to strengthen the intuition and looking for more clues that it scales. The good thing is: the strategy for personal success seems to be aligned with the strategy for a global good faith. So I can live with doubts: maybe it scales, maybe it doesn't. That doesn't change my daily behaviour, I'm maximizing for myself. This is not a prisoner dilemna where I lose if I coop…

No I agree again on a personal level. But on a "global" level I can still be worried about the implications of bad faith communication.

Thanks a lot for the book recommendations. I read the intro you linked and it really piqued my interest.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#176

Post by seer »

senguidev wrote: post #131
q-base wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope your analysis is correct. On a personal level I have found it to work just as you describe, but on a more systemic higher level I am not yet convinced - I hope - but I am sadly not convinced.

Yeah, this is understandable. TBH I'm still trying to strengthen the intuition and looking for more clues that it scales. The good thing is: the strategy for personal success seems to be aligned with the strategy for a global good faith. So I can live with doubts: maybe it scales, maybe it doesn't. That doesn't change my daily behaviour, I'm maximizing for myself. This is not a prisoner dilemna where I lose if I coop…

BTW, not sure how much you've lived in or are in contact with people in authoritarian states, but that strategy (being in good fatih in general) most certainly does not lead to more success, on a personal level.

The best strategy there is to suck up to people in authority and derive benefits from that. Since (as the [Rules for rulers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) idea states) authoritarian societies have way less keys, you will gain much more respectively if you're successful at sucking up to a power key.

And that's why good faith strategies work great in open democracies - since there are _a lot of_ albeit smaller keys, just sucking up is harder, and its easier just to have a reputation of competence, then you can go from one key to another and keep what you've earned. Merit and proven record both become more profitable for an individual, and since there is high trust between keys, it can also be transferable.

That's also a reason why authoritarian societies are so big on loyalty, since on a personal level, there are so much less keys, its better for you to stick with the one you have, and since there is way less trust in the society, you can't easily transfer your influence with one key to another.

Honestly that video (or more so the book it was based on) should be a required reading in all schools...

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#177

Post by andyjohnson0 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #158
probably_wrong wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 <_<

> 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.

'twas ever thus - some people just like arguing. Give them an amplifier and they'll never stop. Usenet was the same, back in the day, so its nothing new.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#178

Post by prox »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #158
probably_wrong wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 <_<

I would recognize that as just another form of bad faith communication. If you’re not in a debate to listen, learn and see things from another perspective you are just in it for emotional reasons (“I want to be right”,”Look how cool I am”,”My way or the highway”, etc)

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#179

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#180

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN