The endgames of bad faith communication • Hacker News Board

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#371

Post by TimPC » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

deadpannini wrote: post #318

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.)

I'd argue that if one side is using bad faith techniques and creating a bad faith conflict, no amount of steel manning is going to make the debate into a good debate. You need good faith efforts from all sides to have a good result. Nothing can replace this.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#372

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 3:43 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #369

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I've asked several of you above, I was hoping the answers would come from you! Feel free to ask them of yourself, if they help you arrive at a case more convincing than the one you are arguing against. 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. >>The evidence supporting their position is convincing, you may now present your…

> 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…

It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.

Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convincing arguments against them, it seems we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#373

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Apr 14, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

Jtype wrote: post #366

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To reiterate: It's totally normal and expected for biological research labs to have biological samples with which to do research. Ukraine, like any other country, has a vested interest in the health of its population, and so Ukraine, like many other countries, performs research on diseases that ail mankind. Additionally, "receives US funding" is a better way to put it than "US funded", which is calculated to make it…

"thinly veiled suggestions of covert maliciousness sprinkled in." This could be your bad-faith reading of the stories, though. You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others. Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.

> You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others

You simply claiming that does not make it so.

>Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.

Yes, there was no disagreement on this point. The point is that "Putin will view X as a provocation, so we shouldn't do X" is an unconvincing argument, because Putin has already claimed his own actions were provocations against him. There is no world in which Putin will not either find or invent a pretext to do what he wants, and call it a "provocation".

No matter what anyone says or does, as long as Ukraine still exists as an independent country, Putin will say, it is engaged in "provocation" which necessitates eliminating Ukraine as an independent country.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#374

Post by mistermann » Mon, Apr 18, 2022, 3:23 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #372

mistermann wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do. Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post with quotes from it and your most convinci…

> It seems that this ad infinitum gibberish posting deflecting from the topic at hand is somewhat of a pattern for you, which would explain why you felt the need to deny you engage in "gish gallop" and other such dissembling off the bat -- because you'd been informed so many times that you do.

This style of thinking seems to have become quite the cultural norm - if someone challenges the narrative, rather than address their words they're declared by fiat to be "gibberish". If a person writes too little, their explanation is insufficient, but if they write more, they're "gish galloping", "JAQing off", etc. Thinking in memes is standard and expected behavior in places like /r/politics, but I'd expect a bit more from HN. What a world it would be if HN'ers could apply the same attention to correctness that they do in threads on technical topics to non-technical topics...and if we could find a way to do it here, perhaps we could teach it to others.

But of course, this sort of thinking "is" surely gibberish.

> Since you've been unable to articulate any substantive issues with the original post

The success of communication is a function of both the sender and receiver. It is certainly possible that what I've written here is useless, but the notion that the opinion of one side in an internet argument is necessarily completely correct seems a bit foolish to me. I am more than happy to consider that my words and ideas contain at least some flaws, perhaps even substantial ones....might yours be of a similar nature? Is it possible?

> we can assume you agree with it, and are arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than for the sake of personal learning.

You can indeed - in fact, it is entirely possible to go through your entire life assuming that how things seem to you are how they are. In fact, I'd say that this is by far the most popular approach, and humanity is reaping what they sow.

If you think I'm "deflecting from the topic at hand", ask me a question about the topic, and I will answer it. And as a benefit: I do not expect the same in return - you are free to ignore every question I pose to you, and I will at most point out your behavior, but I will not engage in childish name calling or stating pejorative opinions in the form of facts.