3 ms·

Edit: for those downvoting, I'm ok with you disagreeing or even feeling annoyed or angry with what I said. I sincerely also wish you would comment below so that

Edit: for those downvoting, I'm ok with you disagreeing or even feeling annoyed or angry with what I said. I sincerely also wish you would comment below so that I better understand what led to you downvoting. Currently I'm not sure what I did to lead to that and I'd like to know so that I might prevent it in the future. Ooo, I feel really frustrated by the labeling of them as good or bad faith communication. In their box explaining good faith communication, they say that all those behaviors can be faked if someone is engaging in bad faith communication, so it leaves me wondering how does one actually know whether another or oneself is using good faith communication? I think this harkens back to the discussion on here the other day about always assume good intentions. After reading this article, I almost left it feeling more hopeless, as if it were saying most people communicate with bad intention (bad faith) and by using good and bad as labels, further ingrains the concept of binary good/evil, falling somewhat into a "bad faith" aspect of black/white polarizing categorization. However, I feel grateful that they started this conversation and overall address the challenge that we have in communicating to resolve conflict. I personally believe they could simplify their good/bad faith classification by focusing more on how open people are communicating about what they're feeling and thinking and how open people are to hearing/imagining how others are feeling and thinking. I think underlying much of their distinction between good/bad faith is an element of more open or more closed, and that such language, especially with the more qualifier included, may not carry such connotations of good/bad. I feel very confident that one of the largest challenges we face as a society is how to communicate more openly with each other—to say how we feel and think—when anything we say can be shared around the world, recorded, aggregated, etc. Even after writing this, the idea of "good faith" vs "bad faith" communication really irks me lol. I believe most of us communicate out of how we are feeling based on the things that have happened and are happening in our lives and we are trying our best. In that way, I assume even the people acting in "bad faith" are acting out of "good faith" and perhaps that's the main issue I have with this. I have found assuming people to have good faith even if they and others assume they have bad faith, can drastically improve how I feel in conversations, relationships, and resolving conflict.

pdonis 5y ago
> how does one actually know whether another or oneself is using good faith communication? By what goal is to be achieved. That's how the article defines the two categories. 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. > After reading this article, I almost left it feeling more hopeless, as if it were saying most people communicate with bad intention (bad faith) I don't think that's true, nor do I think it was the intent of the article. I think most people try to communicate with good faith. But in the world now, with instant mass communication, the small minority of people who do communicate in bad faith can often dominate the communication process. I think one way of looking at the question the article is asking is how that can be fixed. > I assume even the people acting in "bad faith" are acting out of "good faith" As above, it's a matter of the goal the person is trying to achieve, not whether or not the person is sincere in their goal. I think most people who communicate in bad faith are perfectly sincere. They may even believe that they are doing something good by getting other people to do things those other people would not choose to do if they were communicated with in good faith. I do think, though, that the choice of "good faith" and "bad faith" labels does have a reasonable basis: communicating with people to get them to do what you want by hook or by crook, not by convincing them through reasoned argument but just by manipulating them in whatever way works, is not a good thing to do. Even if you think you're doing it to achieve a good goal, human history shows that we humans don't work that way: we can't be trusted to use bad means to achieve good ends.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  > 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 understanding with this person or trick them into doing what I want?" Or is it about asking this of others: "Are they trying to come to a mutual understanding or trick me into getting what they want?" I think in conflict, very very often we can assume we have good intentions and the other has bad intentions. I'd argue that's one of the most commom things I see in conflict: "I'm trying my best and they don't care about me, they only care about themselves," said by both sides. > I don't think that's true, nor do I think it was the intent of the article. I think most people try to communicate with good faith. I hear you and appreciate that. I may have got wrapped up in the frustration I was feeling towards the categorization and exaggerated how much they were assuming that, so thank you for providing your perspective. > But in the world now, with instant mass communication, the small minority of people who do communicate in bad faith can often dominate the communication process. I think one way of looking at the question the article is asking is how that can be fixed. Ah, I guess what I took from the article was less that they were asking a question and more they were giving an answer. Maybe I misread the amount of certainty they had in presenting of the solution or maybe I disagreed with the certainty they had in describing what was the specific problem. As for how to resolve such things, I've often wondered if the solution is for many of us to communicate more openly and loudly. I remember watching a news report on a pharmaceutical sales guy who I think sold painkillers and it seemed to me that he was so focused on making a ton of money because he was quite emotionally numb or lonely. I think so many of us don't open up emotionally to others and start thinking others are out to get us and don't care about us so we preemptively try to get them and not care about them, further distancing and closing ourselves off from them and even ourselves.

pdonis 5y ago

> how does one actually know whether another or oneself is using good faith communication? By what goal is to be achieved. That's how the article defines the two categories. 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. > After reading this article, I almost left it feeling more hopeless, as if it were saying most people communicate with bad intention (bad faith) I don't think that's true, nor do I think it was the intent of the article. I think most people try to communicate with good faith. But in the world now, with instant mass communication, the small minority of people who do communicate in bad faith can often dominate the communication process. I think one way of looking at the question the article is asking is how that can be fixed. > I assume even the people acting in "bad faith" are acting out of "good faith" As above, it's a matter of the goal the person is trying to achieve, not whether or not the person is sincere in their goal. I think most people who communicate in bad faith are perfectly sincere. They may even believe that they are doing something good by getting other people to do things those other people would not choose to do if they were communicated with in good faith. I do think, though, that the choice of "good faith" and "bad faith" labels does have a reasonable basis: communicating with people to get them to do what you want by hook or by crook, not by convincing them through reasoned argument but just by manipulating them in whatever way works, is not a good thing to do. Even if you think you're doing it to achieve a good goal, human history shows that we humans don't work that way: we can't be trusted to use bad means to achieve good ends.

jimkleiber 5y ago
> 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 understanding with this person or trick them into doing what I want?" Or is it about asking this of others: "Are they trying to come to a mutual understanding or trick me into getting what they want?" I think in conflict, very very often we can assume we have good intentions and the other has bad intentions. I'd argue that's one of the most commom things I see in conflict: "I'm trying my best and they don't care about me, they only care about themselves," said by both sides. > I don't think that's true, nor do I think it was the intent of the article. I think most people try to communicate with good faith. I hear you and appreciate that. I may have got wrapped up in the frustration I was feeling towards the categorization and exaggerated how much they were assuming that, so thank you for providing your perspective. > But in the world now, with instant mass communication, the small minority of people who do communicate in bad faith can often dominate the communication process. I think one way of looking at the question the article is asking is how that can be fixed. Ah, I guess what I took from the article was less that they were asking a question and more they were giving an answer. Maybe I misread the amount of certainty they had in presenting of the solution or maybe I disagreed with the certainty they had in describing what was the specific problem. As for how to resolve such things, I've often wondered if the solution is for many of us to communicate more openly and loudly. I remember watching a news report on a pharmaceutical sales guy who I think sold painkillers and it seemed to me that he was so focused on making a ton of money because he was quite emotionally numb or lonely. I think so many of us don't open up emotionally to others and start thinking others are out to get us and don't care about us so we preemptively try to get them and not care about them, further distancing and closing ourselves off from them and even ourselves.