11 ms·

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

by tux1968 5y ago

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 with the opposition. TLDR: We should be most aggressive and loud in criticism of those we agree with most.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I'd say it slightly different: I hope that we can have the courage to tell the people closest to us when their behaviors make us feel angry or disgusted or ashamed. I don't like to use the word "criticism" because I believe it tends to be about trying to objectively label their actions, and much more prefer opening up about we individually feel or even how we imagine others might feel in reaction to those actions. I agree with you in that this may be more well received by people who feel closest to us and also may be easier for us to open up to them when we fee close to them.
endominus 5y ago
There are, in my opinion, two problems with that. The first is that it is very, very difficult for most people to view their own side objectively. The Russel conjugation comes to mind; "I am a freedom fighter, you are a rebel, he is a terrorist." The other problem is that often, calling out your own side's bad behavior feels like treachery. "When arguments become soldiers, to criticize your own sides' points is to stab your fellows in the back." Anyone who engages in that kind of criticism is likely to be ostracized as a traitor well before their criticisms are taken seriously. See, for example, the Hundred Flowers Campaign. I believe the book Scout Mindset by Julia Galef discusses ways around the first problem (I have not personally read the book), with the main thrust being that this is exceptionally difficult to train oneself to do and a mostly personal endeavor. For the second problem, I have no idea except to aspire to groups that welcome self-criticism.
- rocqua 5y ago
  I think the 'critisize your own is backstabbing' thought is much less relevant in private discussion, and that might be where it's most possible to call out and change compatriots who engage in bad-faith communication.
  - endominus 5y ago
    In high-trust social circles, certainly. But the risk of reputational damage still exists when using these channels; this is how whisper networks destroy people seen as insufficiently dedicated to the Cause. Criticize the wrong person or do so insensitively, do it to a person with an outsized ego, and you may find yourself ostracized. Jo Freeman's essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness well describes how such power imbalances can occur and how people suspected of insufficient loyalty can be informally but firmly removed from the decision-making of a group. This is, after all, why virtue signalling is such a common tactic. It shores up reputational defense against such accusations. Unfortunately, it also commonly has the effect of further deepening the divide between the group and other parties who might otherwise be interested in the Cause, as the most valuable signalling techniques require costly actions - i.e. ones that are materially or socially damaging to the member doing said signalling. This may affirm loyalty, but often harms proselytization efforts (you cannot advance the Cause to your family if you have cut off contact with them for not already being part of the Cause, for example).
- Mezzie 5y ago
  The second problem is being made worse by the increasing polarization and the cutting of the ties that bound the different sides, at least in America. People with political disagreements were never best friends, but there used to be more shared socialization than there is now. I'm from a bipartisan family in a purple area in a purple/battlefield state. You can't grow up like I did without being exposed to both/all sides of the aisle, so you end up with a pretty decent idea of the follies of your own side as well as a lot of friends/colleagues/etc. that don't agree with you. 10-15 years ago, I was still 'allowed' to deviate from accepted practice/opinion, as long as I respected the hosts, and conditional/partial belonging was allowed. (e.g. I might be a dirty commie liberal, but I'm still a Christian or, on the other end, I might be a gun nut but I'm still queer so I fit in 'enough'). Now, not so much. We also used to have more defined and accepted internal fighting/it used to be accepted that sides were coalitions instead of Borgs. Now, not so much. We talk a lot about things we can't say/do, and share tips on how not to be pilloried for saying the wrong thing. Interestingly, these discussions are happening with people across all parts of the political spectrum. People were always somewhat suspicious of you for hanging out with the enemy, but it was accepted if you were of an intellectual or sneaky bent. Now it's not. You're in or you're out.
vlunkr 5y ago
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.
- johnm 5y ago
  You'll be called much much worse than that. IME, you'll be lumped into the "other side" as defined by each of the bad faith participants. And if you point out their bad faith intent and rhetorical games, the level of ad hominem attacks increases exponentially.
  - switchbak 5y ago
    Exactly. This explains why those in the middle receive the most aggression: they're traitors AND hated by both extremes. Whether you want to or not, as things get more polarized, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain any kind of nuanced position.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition. It's solely defined by the sides in opposition. There's a real and important difference between holding positions which make you "roughly" at the center of apparent sides, and the apparent holding of positions because "moderate" or "centrist" is being held up as a virtue. And that last part is key: at the point where people are arguing that they are moderate, rather then what they actually believe, they're not arguing in good faith to start with - they're trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter. At best, they're in fact arguing for the status quo and trying to pretend that they are not in fact very definitely asserting a position by doing that.
      - notahacker 5y ago
        "Centrism" is every bit as real as "right wing" or "left wing", both positions also defined in different contexts by what is to the left/right of them. And people can be as genuinely enthusiastic in principle and detail about "a market, but a heavily regulated one" as they can about "the government has no business interfering in markets" or "private profiteers can't be allowed to exploit this resource". Or indeed hold a particular "right wing" or "left wing" position purely because they believe that agreeing with their tribe or expressing the appropriate degree of vehemence of disagreement with the other tribes makes them more virtuous. There's a certain amount of irony in dismissing a entire range of political opinion as uniquely susceptible to "trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter" under an article about bad faith communication.
ajross 5y ago
> It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques. In fact that practice is expressly disallowed on this very site, whose guidelines demand we assume good faith on the part of other commenters.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  Thank you. I wondered how many others have reached the same conclusion. I know I did almost immediately
- cycomanic 5y ago
  According to the article always assuming bad faith by the other side is part of the problem that we are lead into. So by calling for the assumption of good faith we can avoid falling into the spiral of bad faith communication.
- otikik 5y ago
  I agree that is one way to interpret those guidelines, but I don't think it is the only way to do it. It is completely possible for one person to use bad faith techniques without doing it on purpose. You can assume they did that by mistake, and point that out. If after being presented with the evidence they simply refuse to take it, you can continue from there. But be prepared to be presented by their own counter-argument, though.
colordrops 5y ago
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.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/brazil-government-threatens-and-harasses-journalist-glenn-greenwald.html https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor behavior.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.
      - gkaly 5y ago
softfalcon 5y ago
I agree that it’s important for your own side to call out bad faith communication as much as possible. Scrutiny of your own sides arguments helps improve your position and intellectual honesty. That being said, what is ideal in theory, breaks down in practice. Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, my experience has been that when one person calls out another on their side for bad faith communication, a weird popularity contest happens. As others have said about “feeling like a traitor”, the person who is called out feels metaphorically “stabbed in the back” by someone they now perceive as a “turncoat”. The ensuing popularity battle is used to discredit the position of the person who called out the bad faith communication. I’ve seen it many times, it’s both predictable and bizarre. Watching folks alienate their closest friends and advocates to protect a perceived attack on their ego is wild.
inglor_cz 5y ago
One of the things about call out culture is that it can be an extremely potent weapon for bad faith actors to silence everyone else. Thus stiffling vital dissent and making organizations stupid. In the recent Atlantic, there is an article by Jonathan Haidt that argues precisely that. Looking at past results, I would not encourage call out culture further.
Vinnl 5y ago
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.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  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.
  - hedora 5y ago
    "Gaslighting" has a different meaning (go watch the movie; it's a classic). I haven't heard the other two terms, and wouldn't be able to guess what they mean. Sea lions spend all day fighting over [arbitrary thing] to impress potential mates. I'm certain this happens on social media, and that most potential mates are as impressed as they are by an actual sea lion. :-) Concern trolling seems to be too specific a term.
    - camtarn 5y ago
hedora 5y ago
I once got in a long argument with a pro vaccine journalist about this (I am also for vaccines). The predominant viewpoint in modern day journalism is that a true headline that is technically correct and gets page views is a good headline. This is the first sign of bad faith communication in the article (misleading with facts). Example (ficticious) controversial headline: "Scientists extremely concerned that new variant will kill more children." Two scientists, and only two dead kids globally (so, less than the current variant), and this is a fine thing to say, apparently. The goal of a good journalist, in their mind, is to be technically correct while selling papers by getting people to assume the headline means: "The scientific consensus is that a larger percentage of children will die from the next Covid variant". No minds were changed during the argument, but I think we both learned something.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  In the sprit of TFA, let me try to steel man their argument, with which I don't agree. Effective communication requires nuance, and definitionally nuances are subtle, and therefore are often difficult to convey in a terse way. Headlines definitionally are restricted in length. So we can say that nuance and headlines are natural enemies. Therefore, the best thing a headline can do is to direct a reader toward nuance, which hopefully is contained within the article. So an article that gets page views is not just good for the publisher, but it's also good for discourse in general. But what about technically correct? Well, I think it's safe to say that a headline that gets clicks but is technically wrong is not what we want. Then let's consider technically correct, what does that even mean? To me, I'd really have to hear the argument in full, but in the spirit of steel manning I'd have to think what they meant was "factually correct", as "technically correct" has some negative connotation having to do focusing on facts while ignoring or discounting more salient issues. Then again, due to the limited nature of a headline, some or even most of the context must be elided. So really I think the difference between something being "factually correct" and "technically correct" is intent to deceive through lies of omission. Given the above, I would say a good headline is one which drives the reader to nuance and does so in a way which is factually correct, which I could see characterized as "technically correct and gets page views".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jimkleiber 5y ago

I'd say it slightly different: I hope that we can have the courage to tell the people closest to us when their behaviors make us feel angry or disgusted or ashamed. I don't like to use the word "criticism" because I believe it tends to be about trying to objectively label their actions, and much more prefer opening up about we individually feel or even how we imagine others might feel in reaction to those actions. I agree with you in that this may be more well received by people who feel closest to us and also may be easier for us to open up to them when we fee close to them.

endominus 5y ago

There are, in my opinion, two problems with that. The first is that it is very, very difficult for most people to view their own side objectively. The Russel conjugation comes to mind; "I am a freedom fighter, you are a rebel, he is a terrorist." The other problem is that often, calling out your own side's bad behavior feels like treachery. "When arguments become soldiers, to criticize your own sides' points is to stab your fellows in the back." Anyone who engages in that kind of criticism is likely to be ostracized as a traitor well before their criticisms are taken seriously. See, for example, the Hundred Flowers Campaign. I believe the book Scout Mindset by Julia Galef discusses ways around the first problem (I have not personally read the book), with the main thrust being that this is exceptionally difficult to train oneself to do and a mostly personal endeavor. For the second problem, I have no idea except to aspire to groups that welcome self-criticism.

rocqua 5y ago
I think the 'critisize your own is backstabbing' thought is much less relevant in private discussion, and that might be where it's most possible to call out and change compatriots who engage in bad-faith communication.
- endominus 5y ago
  In high-trust social circles, certainly. But the risk of reputational damage still exists when using these channels; this is how whisper networks destroy people seen as insufficiently dedicated to the Cause. Criticize the wrong person or do so insensitively, do it to a person with an outsized ego, and you may find yourself ostracized. Jo Freeman's essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness well describes how such power imbalances can occur and how people suspected of insufficient loyalty can be informally but firmly removed from the decision-making of a group. This is, after all, why virtue signalling is such a common tactic. It shores up reputational defense against such accusations. Unfortunately, it also commonly has the effect of further deepening the divide between the group and other parties who might otherwise be interested in the Cause, as the most valuable signalling techniques require costly actions - i.e. ones that are materially or socially damaging to the member doing said signalling. This may affirm loyalty, but often harms proselytization efforts (you cannot advance the Cause to your family if you have cut off contact with them for not already being part of the Cause, for example).
Mezzie 5y ago
The second problem is being made worse by the increasing polarization and the cutting of the ties that bound the different sides, at least in America. People with political disagreements were never best friends, but there used to be more shared socialization than there is now. I'm from a bipartisan family in a purple area in a purple/battlefield state. You can't grow up like I did without being exposed to both/all sides of the aisle, so you end up with a pretty decent idea of the follies of your own side as well as a lot of friends/colleagues/etc. that don't agree with you. 10-15 years ago, I was still 'allowed' to deviate from accepted practice/opinion, as long as I respected the hosts, and conditional/partial belonging was allowed. (e.g. I might be a dirty commie liberal, but I'm still a Christian or, on the other end, I might be a gun nut but I'm still queer so I fit in 'enough'). Now, not so much. We also used to have more defined and accepted internal fighting/it used to be accepted that sides were coalitions instead of Borgs. Now, not so much. We talk a lot about things we can't say/do, and share tips on how not to be pilloried for saying the wrong thing. Interestingly, these discussions are happening with people across all parts of the political spectrum. People were always somewhat suspicious of you for hanging out with the enemy, but it was accepted if you were of an intellectual or sneaky bent. Now it's not. You're in or you're out.

vlunkr 5y ago

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.

johnm 5y ago
You'll be called much much worse than that. IME, you'll be lumped into the "other side" as defined by each of the bad faith participants. And if you point out their bad faith intent and rhetorical games, the level of ad hominem attacks increases exponentially.
- switchbak 5y ago
  Exactly. This explains why those in the middle receive the most aggression: they're traitors AND hated by both extremes. Whether you want to or not, as things get more polarized, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain any kind of nuanced position.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    Except centrism isn't a real position - by definition. It's solely defined by the sides in opposition. There's a real and important difference between holding positions which make you "roughly" at the center of apparent sides, and the apparent holding of positions because "moderate" or "centrist" is being held up as a virtue. And that last part is key: at the point where people are arguing that they are moderate, rather then what they actually believe, they're not arguing in good faith to start with - they're trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter. At best, they're in fact arguing for the status quo and trying to pretend that they are not in fact very definitely asserting a position by doing that.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      "Centrism" is every bit as real as "right wing" or "left wing", both positions also defined in different contexts by what is to the left/right of them. And people can be as genuinely enthusiastic in principle and detail about "a market, but a heavily regulated one" as they can about "the government has no business interfering in markets" or "private profiteers can't be allowed to exploit this resource". Or indeed hold a particular "right wing" or "left wing" position purely because they believe that agreeing with their tribe or expressing the appropriate degree of vehemence of disagreement with the other tribes makes them more virtuous. There's a certain amount of irony in dismissing a entire range of political opinion as uniquely susceptible to "trying to argue they're morally superior without engaging with the actual subject matter" under an article about bad faith communication.

ajross 5y ago

> It would be great for people who desire good faith communication to call out people who are resorting to bad faith techniques. In fact that practice is expressly disallowed on this very site, whose guidelines demand we assume good faith on the part of other commenters.

beebeepka 5y ago
Thank you. I wondered how many others have reached the same conclusion. I know I did almost immediately
cycomanic 5y ago
According to the article always assuming bad faith by the other side is part of the problem that we are lead into. So by calling for the assumption of good faith we can avoid falling into the spiral of bad faith communication.
otikik 5y ago
I agree that is one way to interpret those guidelines, but I don't think it is the only way to do it. It is completely possible for one person to use bad faith techniques without doing it on purpose. You can assume they did that by mistake, and point that out. If after being presented with the evidence they simply refuse to take it, you can continue from there. But be prepared to be presented by their own counter-argument, though.

colordrops 5y ago

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.

threatofrain 5y ago
I think Glenn Greenwald was stressed into a place where he just kind of cracked, such as by governments actually hounding him. I have listened to his recent interviews and I think he's gone into classical conspiracy theories involving the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwal... https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-releases/article/brazil-government-threatens-and-harasses-journalist-glenn-greenwald.html https://www.ifj.org/media-centre/news/detail/category/press-...
- colordrops 5y ago
  Could you cite a particular unfounded "conspiracy theory" that he is espousing? Most of the things he's written about the CIA, FBI, NSA etc that I've read are grounded in fact and sourced.. Are you suggesting that these three letter agencies aren't constantly involved in shady unethical often law-breaking activity? Have you not been reading hacker news at all? They make it to the front page regularly with their poor behavior.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.
    - gkaly 5y ago

softfalcon 5y ago

I agree that it’s important for your own side to call out bad faith communication as much as possible. Scrutiny of your own sides arguments helps improve your position and intellectual honesty. That being said, what is ideal in theory, breaks down in practice. Feel free to take this with a grain of salt, my experience has been that when one person calls out another on their side for bad faith communication, a weird popularity contest happens. As others have said about “feeling like a traitor”, the person who is called out feels metaphorically “stabbed in the back” by someone they now perceive as a “turncoat”. The ensuing popularity battle is used to discredit the position of the person who called out the bad faith communication. I’ve seen it many times, it’s both predictable and bizarre. Watching folks alienate their closest friends and advocates to protect a perceived attack on their ego is wild.

inglor_cz 5y ago

One of the things about call out culture is that it can be an extremely potent weapon for bad faith actors to silence everyone else. Thus stiffling vital dissent and making organizations stupid. In the recent Atlantic, there is an article by Jonathan Haidt that argues precisely that. Looking at past results, I would not encourage call out culture further.

Vinnl 5y ago

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.

Beltalowda 5y ago
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.
- hedora 5y ago
  "Gaslighting" has a different meaning (go watch the movie; it's a classic). I haven't heard the other two terms, and wouldn't be able to guess what they mean. Sea lions spend all day fighting over [arbitrary thing] to impress potential mates. I'm certain this happens on social media, and that most potential mates are as impressed as they are by an actual sea lion. :-) Concern trolling seems to be too specific a term.
  - camtarn 5y ago

hedora 5y ago

I once got in a long argument with a pro vaccine journalist about this (I am also for vaccines). The predominant viewpoint in modern day journalism is that a true headline that is technically correct and gets page views is a good headline. This is the first sign of bad faith communication in the article (misleading with facts). Example (ficticious) controversial headline: "Scientists extremely concerned that new variant will kill more children." Two scientists, and only two dead kids globally (so, less than the current variant), and this is a fine thing to say, apparently. The goal of a good journalist, in their mind, is to be technically correct while selling papers by getting people to assume the headline means: "The scientific consensus is that a larger percentage of children will die from the next Covid variant". No minds were changed during the argument, but I think we both learned something.

ModernMech 5y ago
In the sprit of TFA, let me try to steel man their argument, with which I don't agree. Effective communication requires nuance, and definitionally nuances are subtle, and therefore are often difficult to convey in a terse way. Headlines definitionally are restricted in length. So we can say that nuance and headlines are natural enemies. Therefore, the best thing a headline can do is to direct a reader toward nuance, which hopefully is contained within the article. So an article that gets page views is not just good for the publisher, but it's also good for discourse in general. But what about technically correct? Well, I think it's safe to say that a headline that gets clicks but is technically wrong is not what we want. Then let's consider technically correct, what does that even mean? To me, I'd really have to hear the argument in full, but in the spirit of steel manning I'd have to think what they meant was "factually correct", as "technically correct" has some negative connotation having to do focusing on facts while ignoring or discounting more salient issues. Then again, due to the limited nature of a headline, some or even most of the context must be elided. So really I think the difference between something being "factually correct" and "technically correct" is intent to deceive through lies of omission. Given the above, I would say a good headline is one which drives the reader to nuance and does so in a way which is factually correct, which I could see characterized as "technically correct and gets page views".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]