11 ms·

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

• ianai 5y ago
  It’s more basic too. Bad faith redefines the nature of the situation. It’s no longer a conversation and instead a game. And in game theory you have to play on level ground as your opponent. Ie when they go low you have to go low or exit the conversation turned game. “Going high” in modern rhetoric doesn’t actually net strategic advantage. So maybe that’s insightful. Point out that conversations (unless they’re debates and everyone’s agreed to debate) are not games.
  • antisthenes 5y ago
    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 viewing conversation as a win-win.
    • Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      "Social media made y'all way to comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." - Mike Tyson
    • ianai 5y ago
      Digitization has clearly added lots of negatives that otherwise wouldn’t last. As simple as, does it really make sense for something local with only local and fittingly small consequences, to be discussed at a global level? But anybody can post a photo or video to be seen the world over. Depending on content there will even be users on the internet policing (“influencing”) other users in the internet to weigh in on whatever. But clearly human societies function at a level of cohesion that breaks apart at scale. Ie there isn’t one truly universal way to live that everyone can and in time could be made to live. Edit-I’d venture even the ability for the internet to bring together people who would otherwise not have a cohort “breaks at scale” because people just don’t scale like that.
    • rocqua 5y ago
      I think digitization, specifically the commoditization of attention in advertising-supported social media, has strongly incentivized bad-faith communication. It turns out that outrage and conflict are a great way to get attention. So systems made to profit from keeping attention have inadvertently started promoting conflict and outrage to capture the value of the attention produced. This has been profitable enough that these social media now dominate a large part of public discussions, and other platforms have followed suit either by choice or by selection pressure. Hence a large part of public communication is happening in a context that is (inadvertently or intentionally) built to encourage conflict and outrage. This rewards bad-faith communication, so that is what we get.
    • nicbou 5y ago
      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 about large subreddits. Tight moderation also helps a ton. It enforces a certain tone, and after a while the community crystallises around that tone and enforces it itself. You don't pick fights at the country club. I realise now that I stopped interacting in larger communities. I prefer quieter channels where people have a reputation to uphold.
      • SamPatt 5y ago
        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).
        • nicbou 5y ago
          My policy as a moderator was to moderate tone but not opinions. Some people weren't happy when "the good guys" got their posts deleted and "the bad guys" didn't, because the latter left their guns at the door. The new moderation team is more heavy-handed. Of course people still aren't happy. It's a tough job and the pay sucks.
  • throwaway15908 5y ago
    You can side step. A common tactic for mediators. Consider a verbal fight within a couple. Everyone wants to have the last word and both throw loudly anything they can come up with at each other. In such a situaiton you may be able to break that mental stance of your opponent by "simply" shifting the topic/perspective to something, they did not expect at all. This way, you may be able to force you opponent to give up the trench they dig themself into. I know its not simple. This is more education than superficial conversation.
    • ianai 5y ago
      At which point you’ve used a rhetorical tactic and turned a conversation into a game. I’m saying the space of people communicating is larger than the space of people using words in rhetorical games.
      • throwaway15908 5y ago
        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 rhetorical win.
        • chillacy 5y ago
          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?"
          • jimkleiber 5y ago
            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.
• stackbutterflow 5y ago
  Only a tiny percentage of users take part in online discussions . It is important to communicate with bad faith actors so that the overwhelming majority of users who are simply lurkers are exposed to ideas from "the other side". Refusing to engage with bad faith actors is leaving their ideas unchallenged out in the open.
  • switchbak 5y ago
    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.
    • rocqua 5y ago
      I think the continuation of this line of thought is often the argument 'their bad faith communication is so effective we have to counter it with our own'. I hope that this argument under-estimates the intelligence of the silent majority.
      • ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        That is another good way to phrase the problem described by the parent post of yours. There is not a way to beat bad faith communication with good faith communication at scale, because the latter doesn't scale, because the average/median person is not intelligent enough for it. I wish they were.
    • Jensson 5y ago
      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.
      • 5y ago
• sacrosancty 5y ago
  Isn't that more about drifting meaning of the language? "You might be right" is a common way of actually meaning to say "I reluctantly agree that you're definitely right".
  • I_complete_me 5y ago
    Did you forget the addendum "and I was definitely wrong" because that's how I use it!
• Manuel_D 5y ago
  Consider this example: Person A, displaying some humility, says : "You might be right, there is a chance politician X is in the wrong". Person A assumes this is interpreted by Person B as: "There is uncertainty about politician X being in the wrong" Person B actually interprets this as: "Person A has admitted, without any doubt, to politician X being completely in the wrong" I think you intended Person A to be someone with an opposing view. But I read this Person A as a friend that strongly likes Politician X, and in some ways that seemed even more appropriate to what the article is talking about. Especially if "politician X" is something like a controversial issue that is strongly moralized. People often end up outwardly adopting an almost Manichean set of opinions on things, even if our internal beliefs are more nuanced. So we end up saying Politician X is perfect, even if we have more mixed opinions. It's not Bad Faith communication in the same vein as a troll on a forum, we're acting in bad faith to maintain cohesion and membership among our own social group. The OP articulates this well in a paragraph: A key feature of escalating extremism is a belief that group membership requires bad faith engagements with out-groups. In these contexts, bad faith behavior is often justified to maintain in-group membership and consensus. The normalization of bad faith communication contributes to the creation of extreme in-group pressures, which can rupture identities and exacerbate mental health crises. Personal instabilities usually lead to a doubling down on the need for group membership, increasing rationalizations and amplifications of bad faith practices.
• gumby 5y ago
  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.
• rapind 5y ago
  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.
• usernomdeguerre 5y ago
  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 the goal is persuasion then good-faith arguments don't scale. A tangent here is that on private-public platforms like twitter "your listeners" could be an entirely separate set from the people you actually have contact with. Algorithms that signal-boost opinions out of their actual social circle become essentially propaganda posters for a host of varying in and out groups. 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.
  • andybak 5y ago
    > if the goal is persuasion then good-faith arguments don't scale That phrase helps crystalize the concept very nicely.
    • LichenStone 5y ago
      Aye, the ideal goal of disussion shouldn't be to persuade in my opinion, but to explore each other's ideas with the aim of modifying and improving each position. I think the process of doing that happens to be the best way to actually get people to go along with something also.
      • JoeEasy23 5y ago
        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
        • LichenStone 5y ago
          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.
• rad88 5y ago
  You can't control the outcome of a conversation, and cynicism goes hand in hand with bad faith. Communication is still the most awesome thing that humans do, or will ever be able to do!
  • dylan604 5y ago
    That's some serious pom-pom action you just did. There are times when bad faith communication is just a waste of everyone's time. It's great to think that by having a conversation positive results will occur. However, that's not always going to happen. Since I'm not part of a diplomatic entourage where the mere act of continuing to talk past each other is seen as a positive, that same behavior does not tend to benefit normal people. At times, I have chosen to just end/walk away from a conversation just to avoid the energy and inevitable frustration. Maybe it's cynicism, but as you've said, I can't control the outcome but I can control it as far as me continuing to be a part of it.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • rad88 5y ago
      You're right that my pom-pom action was serious, but it sounds like you're imaging a different kind of dilemma than I was. You're referring to walking away from an unproductive conversation, while I was responding to a cynical argument for choosing bad faith over good.
• DharmaPolice 5y ago
  I think there's a degree of market segmentation (as it were) when it comes to arguing. The fastest way someone can discredit themselves in my eyes is to be too certain about something. In your example I'd be much more open to someone who admits that their side could be in the wrong than someone who says that it's impossible. Especially where there's not enough evidence for that kind of claim. But you're right that certainty does appeal in other contexts.
• ehnto 5y ago
  > If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate? Unfortunately you can't always know ahead of time, even here on HN I have found that sometimes if I give an inch, others will take a mile. But if that happens I think you have two options: Out right correction, just outright say "Hey wait a minute, that's not what I meant." or, step back and accept that you are probably not changing this persons mind today. The trouble with the internet, or really any public speaking, is that you might accidentally end up on the side of the conversation you are against in the eyes of the public, so just letting it go may not be a good idea.
• Vinnl 5y ago
  > If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate? The article actually addresses this, and in a good way IMHO (in the paragraph starting "Avoiding social catastrophe"). The reason to both to communicate, in such cases, is to attempt to demonstrate your willingness (and ability!) to engage in good faith, and thereby eventually restoring faith in Person B that good-faith communication is possible. Note that this is explicitly not an attempt to convince the other party of whatever it is you're arguing about. The goal is not to change their view, but to restore a society in which discussion about those views in good faith is at least possible again.
• gameswithgo 5y ago
• m0llusk 5y ago
  Those most likely to have strong disagreements mostly consist of politically engaged liberals at 6-8% of the population and politically engaged conservatives at 6-8% of the population. Because of this a more accurate representation of what is going on is that persons A and B disagree strongly with persons C and D and persons E through Z really wish that persons A through D would find some middle ground that all can live with even if they harbor objections. In this larger context it may make sense to call out bad faith communication and engage in good faith communication for the benefit of the larger population who get dragged into political conflicts.
• anon23anon 5y ago
  I think the short answer is don't argue w/ an idiot.
• dsugarman 5y ago
  When this happens I generally pause and say something like I just said X, what did you hear? If that doesn't work then I throw out a hypothesis like it sounds like you heard Y, is that right? Once we agree upon what I said and what they heard then I clarify that I don't believe Y, I sincerely believe X.
• dfxm12 5y ago
  But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. It's not that people prone to this are doing so because of poor communication skills that can be improved upon, bad faith communication is by definition intentional. Why even bother to communicate? You probably should disregard anyone communicating in bad faith.
• antattack 5y ago
  I think the biggest problem is cult of personality. Instead of discussing actual issues we focus on elevating or disparaging people. In your example - what is the chance that 'your' politician X is always right?
• slothtrop 5y ago
  I think to an extent people do this unconsciously, or offenders don't realize their projection onto others is bad faith. It's habit that is mistakenly believed to be a good heuristic. I expect this triggers as they switch to "argument" mode following contradiction, assuming a posture of attacking/defending, casting nuance aside. As online spaces are concerned, one thing I liked about forums is that communities, while large, became increasingly familiar and you could reasonably expect some good faith discussion over time. On spaces like reddit, all the tip toeing in the world doesn't prevent it. You could be Mr Rogers speaking to someone's "elephant in the brain" and it wouldn't prevent it.
• spaetzleesser 5y ago
  “Consider this example: Person A, displaying some humility, says : "You might be right, there is a chance politician X is in the wrong". Person A assumes this is interpreted by Person B as: "There is uncertainty about politician X being in the wrong" Person B actually interprets this as: "Person A has admitted, without any doubt, to politician X being completely in the wrong"” Reminds me of a discussion with a neighbor. I was talking about things I didn’t like Obama or Biden had done. His response was “see? Should have voted for Trump”. He didn’t understand at all when I told him that Trump is even more wrong in my opinion. People are trained to totally agree or disagree with one side.