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

61–70 of 374 posts

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#61

Post by jimkleiber »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #60
jimkleiber wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides really not liking the good/bad faith categorization as I described in another comment, another thing I think this article misses is the personal benefit of communicating more openly with someone else. I feel much more relaxed and proud when I open up and tell someone what I'm feeling and why I think I believe what I do than when I insult them for their beliefs. It may not "win" the argument and it may not eve…

> Anyway, I could talk about this stuff for days, it's what I do for work, teaching myself and others how to communicate to better resolve such conflict. How do you approach conflict resulting from bad faith interaction? How do you deescalate such conflict?

I find one of the most effective ways has been for me to try to feel closer to them first. I think a lot of conflict leads into attacks, such as blame, guilt tripping, rejection, etc, and so I practice replying to such attacks in a way where I might feel closer to them after than when I started. To get back on the same team, per say. It doesn't mean they will, but I've found that if at least think they're on my team, then I'm more likely to engage with them openly and they may come around to do the same.

I practice three main steps: 1) tell the truth about how I'm actually feeling 2) tell them how I imagine they might be feeling, and 3) say one thing to connect with love. If I do the first two steps well, then the third comes more easily.

There are other tactics, such as separating behavior from person: "I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at what you said, and I'm telling you because I care about you." Or really expressing uncertainty: "I don't know what to do anymore" (as long as I genuinely don't know what to do)

I'd say overall the goal is for me to feel closer to them, for me to resolve my conflict with them, and then maybe they'll resolve their side as well, but not required.

Does that make sense?

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#62

Post by [deleted] »

rectang wrote: post #19

> many still assert that it is actually unethical to engage "the other side" in good faith. Not everybody on "the other side" is communicating in bad faith, but some are . (Same with "your own side".) When someone is communicating in bad faith, I don't think it's "unethical" to engage them in good faith, I think it's foolhardy . Don't feed the trolls. For dog's sake don't assume you can change the trolls. One of the…

[deleted]

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#63

Post by jimkleiber »

pdonis wrote: post #52
jimkleiber wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a nutshell, good faith communication has the goal of mutual understanding, whether it leads to "agreement" or to the other person doing what you want or not. Bad faith communication has the goal of getting the other person to do what you want, by hook or by crook. But who defines what the goal is? I guess I'm confused as if this is more about a self-reflection question: "Am I trying to come to mutual understandi…

> who defines what the goal is? The person doing the communication. So if that's you, you ask yourself the self-reflection question. If it's the other person, you have to try to figure out what their goal is in communicating with you: are they trying to achieve mutual understanding, or are they trying to get you to do what they want by hook or by crook? Of course any actual conversation is two-way, so you need to ask…

Ah ok, I think one of the hardest things I've worked on is trying to defend/believe in my own good intentions. I had an ex who somewhat insinuated I was manipulating her and it almost broke me, because I started to believe it. The next day, I reflected and came to the belief (not answer) that if I can't defend my own good intentions, who the heck would? And have been working on this since, 7 or so years ago.

I guess I just think it's a really hard problem to definitively know whether I or someone else has such intentions and goals, so I often default to assuming that even if their or my behavior appears to be trying to manipulate, that underneath there may be something wanting mutual understanding, or actually, connection. I have seen so many conflicts resolve in my life when I have the courage to go deep enough to foster that connection. I got covid a few weeks ago and this woman called me weak and a baby and other things...then I found out a week later that she was struggling very hard with her relationship and broke up with her long-term boyfriend. So the name calling, which hurt and angered me in the moment, later revealed itself as stemming from deep pain she was feeling and maybe even the same language she was using towards herself as she struggled to make the decision.

So I just don't know how easy it is to figure out these intentions.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#64

Post by thombles »

vlunkr wrote: post #42
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 agree with this, but in spaces where bad faith is the predominant form of communication, you'll probably be accused of being a centrist for not falling exactly in line.

"Concern troll" is another popular one.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#65

Post by jimkleiber »

chillacy wrote: post #50
for_i_in_range wrote: post #36

Above the line communication: Openness, Curious, Committed to Learning. Below the line: Closed, Defensive, Committed to being right. Credit: Jim Dethmer, The 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership

I thought this was a pretty good book despite the seeming brevity to it. Anyways to really expand for those who haven't read it, Dethmer talks about an internal mindset dial between judgementalness vs curiosity. There are other dials like victim vs agency, emotional acceptance vs denial, etc.

I appreciate you both bringing him up. I had forgotten about his work and may dig more into his book. I had learned of him from the Tim Ferriss podcast, perhaps this episode: https://tim.blog/2020/06/09/jim-dethmer-transcript/

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#66

Post by jimkleiber »

chillacy wrote: post #45
throwaway15908 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a conversation is stagnating in a cycle and you elevate it on a meta level, away from the original topic to that conversation and how it is going, you will not only display good faith but you may be able to find the traces of good faith in your opponent and maybe turn back to the original topic. You cannot flip the table and still call it a game. Its not a game move when your intention is progress and not a rhet…

I personally use the meta-conversational move a lot, and it usually turns heated political discussions into more thoughtful philosophy discussions. I think because most people don't have such strong identity based beliefs around questions like "how can we know if something is right/true/good/bad, what does that mean?"

The meta-conversation technique blew up for me once. A buddy and I got into it and I went in that direction of how do we know if something is good or bad, right or wrong, and it had him feeling incredibly frustrated and distraught, questioning whether his friends have fundamentally different values than he does. I recognized in that moment he seemed very emotionally vulnerable and so I switched out of my head exploration and opened up deep abkut some of the emotional struggles I had been facing. I think very often conflicts are not about the actual conflict we discuss, but about tangential, or even unrelated, things.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#67

Post by gumby »

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 look for this in interviews. Obviously people are typically on best behavior and nervous so liable to make non-meaningful* errors, but I look for humility and openness, hard as it is to find upon such a high pressure and artificial situation. If it does it’s positive.

More importantly the founders set the culture through their own behavior and most new hires adopt and adapt to the local culture. So if you can propagate humility, openness to changing minds, etc your company will become stronger and more fun.

And I use the word “company” deliberately: “corporation” and “business” and technical tools, but a ”company” is a group of people getting together. Often corporation and company are used interchangeably, but effective organizations know the difference.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#68

Post by colordrops »

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…

This is consistently what Glenn Greenwald has done and the smear campaign against him by the DNC and liberal establishment has taken him from a world famous Oscar and Pulitzer prize winning journalist to a pariah and supposed Russian right wing shill, kicked out of the organization he founded, The Intercept.

His beliefs and ideas are clearly left wing and he has remained consistent, but by doing what you suggest he has been effectively destroyed. It's really sad to see. And I agree with you, I think he did the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#69

Post by colordrops »

vlunkr wrote: post #42
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 agree with this, but in spaces where bad faith is the predominant form of communication, you'll probably be accused of being a centrist for not falling exactly in line.

Nah, you'll be accused of being the opposite of what you are. See Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi.

Re: The endgames of bad faith communication

#70

Post by rapind »

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…

What you’re describing is simply person B not really listening, and if that’s true then it’s pointless to argue the point anyways. Person A is better off sticking with the compromise because it doesn’t cost him/her anything to do so, and hey maybe there’s a very slight chance person B clues in.

Basically sticking to good faith even when it’s not reciprocated is usually the best option, or just saving your energy by dropping the topic. The alternative is usually just ego stuff.

Post reply on HN