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

271–280 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#271

Post by newbamboo »

LichenStone wrote: post #257
JoeEasy23 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take an interest, not a position. A position often causes us to feel like we have to defend a position, taking an interest helps increase the likelihood that both parties remain open

That's a good way of thinking about it. Reminds me of when Alan Kay asks "Are ideas like matter? [bumps his fists together] Or are they more like light? [Overlaps his hands]" (roughly paraphrasing there). The ability to entertain multiple, seemingly contradictory thoughts at once is a good skill I think.

“The ability to entertain multiple, seemingly contradictory thoughts at once is a good skill I think.”

Unfortunately large portions of the populace see this as being phony. You must be a red or blue team person, being “people without a tribe” is itself a heresy because by not conforming to this idiotic false dichotomy denies the simpletons and partisans their fallacious little world views. Socrates died in vein, I suppose.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#272

Post by beebeepka »

npteljes wrote: post #141
beebeepka wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is likely a rhetorical question but since you asked: it benefits whoever controls the narrative

And it preserves the integrity of the community at a larger scale.

How exactly? It's not like the only other option is "always assume bad faith".

Since reality is a bit more complex, I think such things should be decided on a case by case basis. I've seen plenty of both extremes here on HN, and tons of unknowns

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#273

Post by deadpannini »

jayspell wrote: post #250
deadpannini wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the goal is persuasion then good-faith arguments don't scale. This is true, but only in a very narrow, specific sense. Arguments don't persuade on their own, they scale with the credibility of the speaker. Speakers gain credibility and respect by: - Giving good advice. - Showing good judgement and making accurate predictions. - Demonstrating that they understand various audience. constituencies, with bonus point…

I agree with you to a point, but it's not my experience that speakers gain credibility and respect by giving good advice / showing good judgement / making accurate predictions. This would be true in traditional discourse, but not online. Online it feels as if speakers gain an audience by demonstrating their world view as loudly and as viciously as possible. It's like a group of children where one has learned that the…

The dynamics you describe are real, especially on the big social-media utilities like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. "Boo outgroup" is the easiest thing to sell in the attention economy, the louder and more viciously, the better.

But "building an audience" is a different than building credibility, trust, and respect. If you just aim for the most eyeballs, you find yourself vulnerable to what some people call audience capture, where your audience controls you, rather than the other way around.

For example, Trump has a huge audience, but that didn't stop an audience from booing him when he recommended getting vaccinated. [0]

The best most of us can hope for, if we're careful, is influence on a small group of people.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-booed-al...

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#274

Post by Beltalowda »

Vinnl wrote: post #219
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.

Indeed. I also rarely "call out" someone when they engage in what's clearly a fallacious argument. Instead, I will engage by saying "I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of the position, because [..]" (strawman), "because [other thing] is bad doesn't say much about [this-thing]; if you want to talk about [other-thing] we can do that another time" (whataboutism), "Just because [organisation/person/group] says X doesn't mean X is true, I think it's more important to look at the arguments they're making" (argument from authority), etc.

This way it doesn't come off an an accusation, it keeps the conversation going, and is generally much more constructive. I found that people who "call out" logical fallacies and the like are generally looking to "win the argument" rather than actually have a conversation.

Calling people out on "bad faith" is common; there's an entire string of terms for this ("gaslighting", "sealioning", "concern trolling", what-have-you). I've never seen it end well. If someone is actually engaging in bad faith then it's better to disengage and call it a day, and if someone is engaging in good faith then all you've did is insult them without actually contributing all that much.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#275

Post by vlunkr »

krapp wrote: post #237
vlunkr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't feed the trolls" was an important rule in old message boards that seems to have been lost in modern social media.

The problem with "Don't feed the trolls" is that no matter what you do, the trolls never stop eating. The assumption that trolls are only motivated by a desire for attention and that, if ignored, they will simply go away like frustrated children in massively naive. Trolls are networked and sponsored by states now. They're weaponized. They'll find your address and harass your family. They'll complain about you to your…

That's a very small minority of trolls. Most of them are just regular immature and uninformed people who have been taught by the internet to interact in bad faith.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#276

Post by verisimi »

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…

You make a very solid point - public conversations are way more predisposed to bad faith - who's got ability to accept the perception of looking bad in public?!

> My personal opinion is that this is a misaligned incentive that social platforms should correct structurally, rather than via governance or policies. And pushing the corrective actions back down to the individual is a cop-out.

hmm... I rather think the opposite is the case. Its all about playing to the crowd. And that there is no incentive for anyone (apart from the good faith individual) to do anything about it - all that noise translates into engagement with the platform.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#277

Post by boredumb »

We've trained society to believe they are bringing in some form of enlightenment and all who disagree with the orthodoxy portrayed by popular media are quite literally evil and held with contempt. We've banned, censored, demonetized and ostracized people who disagree by finding even the most minuscule lapses of political correctness and excommunicating them from the public sphere or our own personal communities. We are training the youth (children books to graduates) that politics and culture are black and white (sometimes quite literally...), that people are divided into oppressed vs oppressors, privileged vs victims, good vs evil, activists vs status quo, rich vs poor.

There is nothing you can do at this point on an individual level in 90% or more of interactions where you are in a political or social disagreement with someone using good faith communication without it being used to crucify you and be seen as naive, uninformed or apathetic. People have not arrived to their own opinions based on good faith communication or information, they have found themselves there through over socialization, indoctrination, bullying, media bombardment, and fear of not being part of the in-group that they are told are on the right side of history - and so they can only operate on that level of thought and "reasoning". Entitled "activists" and cultural busy bodies aren't going to suddenly find a viewpoint that has been deemed to them by authoritative figures (professors, celebrities, peer group majorities) as the views of an "SJW", "Nazis", "Fascists", "Rednecks", or "Libtards" as a suddenly viable option without suffering massive cognitive dissonance and you showing humility for/steelmanning their opinions will not change that, it will only further cement things for them if they are even listening and not just waiting for you to finish in order to pop the cork off their next manufactured talking point.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#278

Post by ohwellhere »

nicbou wrote: post #228
number6 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the only wining move is not to play?

I have stopped playing, and it turned out to be the winning move. I get involved in conversations, but not in heated debates. I don't even dignify bad faith responses with an answer. Participation is optional. If it's pointless and unpleasant, I don't bother anymore.

I try to do the same, now. From my perspective, a prerequisite is divorcing conversation from the concept of "winning."

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#279

Post by SamPatt »

nicbou wrote: post #213
antisthenes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Agreed moderation is essential. It's easy to spot and remove people who don't care about harmony or true discussion, but it often doesn't happen (or moderators are themselves bad actors).

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#280

Post by banannaise »

Jensson wrote: post #238
switchbak wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue being that you're operating in good faith, while they're putting on a show. You're immediately at a disadvantage because they can use any tool at their disposal, whereas you have to stick to truth and rationality. Unfortunately, the latter two don't typically scale all that well, especially as the bad actor hones their ability to put you in a rhetorical box.

I have never seen anyone get converted by bad faith arguments, but I have seen people get converted by good faith arguments. So it seems good faith arguments are inherently much stronger, while bad faith arguments are useless except for frustrating the other side.

Bad faith arguments convert by quantity, not quality. If you overwhelm the good faith information with mountains of bad faith information, you'll convince a lot of people, none of whom will be able to point at one specific thing that convinced them.
Post reply on HN