The endgames of bad faith communication

Oh yea, as a general rule of thumb I have found that if any party is getting emotional (defensive, frustrated, hurt, etc) then the conversation will have to pivot to feelings.. something about the pre-frontal cortex going offline when we get into a certain state.

I've seen this state called different things, like "Exiles" in IFS therapy, "below the line", "tilted", "triggering painful spots", I usually call it "defensive".

(Aside... a thing I've learned is not to ask if someone is feeling defensive (if they are, they'll say no). Instead I think the better move is to ask if they feel like I'm not listening, or not understanding their position. This lines up with the internal thoughts of feeling defensive.)

All this to say, rational conversation is possible when two people are in a rational state but there are other states of being.

(Aside.. I find that rational communication techniques like NVC are actually devilishly hard to put into practice all the time because they go out the window when we get tilted.)

(Aside... EFT couples therapy is designed around communication in an emotionally vulnerable state as opposed to rational, and supposedly has pretty good empirical results)

I think that most social media is increasing the power of bad faith compared to good faith actors. Normal perspective versus an extreme perspective then I fear that the more normal perspective people often has a more diverse situation with many other sources and influences.

A less extreme person arguing in good faith probably has many other things in his/her life to worry about, like children/parents/work/neighbours etc.

While bad faith actors often have much less distractions, and can more easily afford to just keep the point going. I think a bad faith actor will relative easy force out more moderate/normal people out of the forum or conversation thread. Why keep going, if you got a family and work and .. to take cary about, and arguing in good faith will be hard to get anywhere good ?

I think this give a much bigger loudspeaker to people with more extrem views, and help shut up people with more moderate positions. I suspect the the setup of social media and the tools they use, and the tools within forums influence this.

Engagement is probably increased if such extreme versus moderate is argued, and I think the more extreme position win is likely increasing income for social media.

It is true anyone reading this thread can see exactly what's happening here.

However, I don't think it will have the outcome you think it will.

Yeah, productive ways exist, but is that enough? Again, thinking of Brandolini's Law, it would need to be an order of magnitive more productive than before in order to reach parity.

> Feel free to ask them of yourself...

I am curious to know your thoughts on them. But that's fine, if you choose to ask questions of others but refuse to answer any asked of you, so be it.

> ...if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against.

I will repost this for fun:

>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

-

> As judge of your two's dispute, my own inputs shouldn't be necessary for you to make your case convincingly. If it is, your case is bad.

I will repost this again, for fun:

>> Can you clarify in some detail what position / point of contention you have in mind (just so we're on the same page)?

-

> The points of contention you have with the original post are for you to clarify in some detail. If you have no point of contention with their post, IE you agree with it, then I guess there's no disagreement.

I've complied many times - you are welcome to read my reply, and I welcome you to point out what I haven't answered if you think that is the case. Or, we can continue with this approach, up to you.

>>>>> Just take it from an outside observer, you could stand a little introspection to apply some of the solipsistic philosophical musings to yourself.

>>>> Perhaps you cannot (or will not) think in these terms without falling into a state of solipsism (or impotency due to indecision, another common complaint), but it's certainly not necessary. It is possible to address these ideas as they are, and take them seriously (as opposed to representing that they are silly, woo woo, bad faith, whatever). Perhaps it is not possible in the mainstream, in 2022, but it is possible.

>>> I think it is a bit primitive to make assumptions about what I can or cannot do.

>> "Perhaps" denotes a possibility - it does not required the formation of a belief.

> I don't recall arguing otherwise, so not sure what you're getting at here.

I am getting at the "broadly accepted (or not, as the case may be) meaning represented by particular words (and I guess: how different people interpret/use them, sometimes not caring whether they are doing so erroneously):

perhaps: used when one does not wish to be too definite or assertive in the expression of an opinion

assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Note also: are you not guilty of the very same thing you accuse me of?: "Perhaps I address these ideas better than you can comprehend, and you just _PERCEIVE_ it to be biting satire that cuts any hypothetical similarly-structured dissembling to the bone"

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting and enjoyable threads I've encountered on HN.