4 ms·

An important lesson in second-order ethics. If your opponent is willing to operate outside of the rules of the game (as you see them) aka acts in bad faith, the

An important lesson in second-order ethics. If your opponent is willing to operate outside of the rules of the game (as you see them) aka acts in bad faith, they can achieve their ends by taking advantage of your adherence to the rules. Recognizing when someone is doing this and refusing to play along is a difficult, but sometimes essential, skill. (Though one we all learned to some extent on the playground)

nerdawson 4y ago
Refusing to play along will be seen as a loss, which is precisely the intention.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Depends on the refusal. Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule. There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange. The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those. So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
  - nerdawson 4y ago
    If you're trying to win over an audience based on fact, you've already lost. Emotion wins every single time. This is where you see a lot of really smart people trip up. They think that being right matters. It doesn't. > The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. 100%
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Sure, but most such losses are easily sustained, costing almost nothing. Certainly, some are not. When running for office, it's dangerous. When talking to family, it's dangerous. But I sustain losses with a simple "fair enough" and walk away quite often having lost nothing. To people with slightly more good faith, a quick "I'm not quite convinced, but I can't nail down my disagreement" is sufficient to gracefully take the L. AFAIK I'm quite well-respected in my peer group so it isn't causing me any harm.
- BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  Except if you start with "OK, let's play along and see where that leads us". This leads to disaster. "OK, now that we've seen that what you are saying is bullshit, let's talk real" (you turn away form that person and start to talk even if they do as well) Oh man, I hate politics.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  The way around this is by 'no, but'ing. You're not playing that game, you're going to play this other, better one instead. It requires some eloquence, charisma, and social intelligence to pull off such a redirection, though. In defining the played game, the other person is expressing social power. Either playing along or refusing still allows them that power, whereas changing the game is addressing that expression of superiority directly.
  - cxr 4y ago
    Can you elaborate?
metadat 4y ago
Seems you're building on top of another HN thread from today: "Ask HN: Higher order derivatives in everyday life?" https//news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32257887 Unfortunately real life is more complex than Calculus I. The analogy is simultaneously valid and useless.
- mgdlbp 4y ago
  GP used 'higher-order' to mean higher in some ontology of abstraction, similar to 'meta', à la 'higher-order function'. In this case, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics Speaking of today's submissions, Wikipedia might need some discussion of its own about what to do with these articles all about pretty much the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadiscourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadiscourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-communication (meta: username checks out)
weego 4y ago
Ben Shapiro is a classic case of someone who has made a career out of bad faith 'debating'. Short form and heavily edited to fit short attention media platforms are biased towards this style of interaction because breaking down bad faith debating is a much longer and detailed process than the initial statement.
- brightball 4y ago
  I hear his name a lot but never actually saw anything he did. What type of stuff does he do?
  - booleandilemma 4y ago
    He debates college kids, basically. He's in the same league as Jordan Peterson, another pseudo-intellectual. These are our thought leaders in 2022.
    - simonh 4y ago
      If a (former) tenured and now emeritus professor doesn't count as an intellectual, I'm not sure who would. I have found he seems to have started falling for his own hype recently though. He was fascinating up until a few years ago, and even on the things I disagreed with him on he was worth listening to, but is turning into a parody of himself.
      - kemayo 4y ago
        My impression of him has always been that he's one of those people who would never use one word when one hundred words were available. If he has any good ideas (and I'm skeptical based on what little I've seen and also his dissolution), it's so buried under academic-sounding rambling that working them out is more trouble than it's worth.
  - impalallama 4y ago
    Basically this generations Rush Limbaugh. Very popular Youngish conservative commentator that hosts a successfully podcast/radioshow.
angarg12 4y ago
Sounds to me like intolerant groups that abuse tolerance to push their agendas, or authoritative regimes that invoke free speech to push propaganda that undermines freedom. Would you say those belong in the same category.

nerdawson 4y ago

Refusing to play along will be seen as a loss, which is precisely the intention.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Depends on the refusal. Most bad faith argumentation is a pretty straightforward combination of misdirection, cherry picking, outright lying, "proof" by repeated assertion, and a huge dose of personal insults and ridicule. There's no need to stick to facts or logic if your opponent has made it clear it's not a good faith exchange. The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. The problem with pointing out logical fallacies is that it erodes both of those. So you can end up being 100% right while appearing 100% wrong.
- nerdawson 4y ago
  If you're trying to win over an audience based on fact, you've already lost. Emotion wins every single time. This is where you see a lot of really smart people trip up. They think that being right matters. It doesn't. > The challenge is knowing how to calibrate responses for maximum effect on the audience - who are usually the real target - balanced between keeping credibility and staying relatable instead of dislikable. 100%
renewiltord 4y ago
Sure, but most such losses are easily sustained, costing almost nothing. Certainly, some are not. When running for office, it's dangerous. When talking to family, it's dangerous. But I sustain losses with a simple "fair enough" and walk away quite often having lost nothing. To people with slightly more good faith, a quick "I'm not quite convinced, but I can't nail down my disagreement" is sufficient to gracefully take the L. AFAIK I'm quite well-respected in my peer group so it isn't causing me any harm.
BrandoElFollito 4y ago
Except if you start with "OK, let's play along and see where that leads us". This leads to disaster. "OK, now that we've seen that what you are saying is bullshit, let's talk real" (you turn away form that person and start to talk even if they do as well) Oh man, I hate politics.
Mezzie 4y ago
The way around this is by 'no, but'ing. You're not playing that game, you're going to play this other, better one instead. It requires some eloquence, charisma, and social intelligence to pull off such a redirection, though. In defining the played game, the other person is expressing social power. Either playing along or refusing still allows them that power, whereas changing the game is addressing that expression of superiority directly.
- cxr 4y ago
  Can you elaborate?

metadat 4y ago

Seems you're building on top of another HN thread from today: "Ask HN: Higher order derivatives in everyday life?" https//news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32257887 Unfortunately real life is more complex than Calculus I. The analogy is simultaneously valid and useless.

mgdlbp 4y ago
GP used 'higher-order' to mean higher in some ontology of abstraction, similar to 'meta', à la 'higher-order function'. In this case, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics Speaking of today's submissions, Wikipedia might need some discussion of its own about what to do with these articles all about pretty much the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadiscourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadiscourse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-communication (meta: username checks out)

weego 4y ago

Ben Shapiro is a classic case of someone who has made a career out of bad faith 'debating'. Short form and heavily edited to fit short attention media platforms are biased towards this style of interaction because breaking down bad faith debating is a much longer and detailed process than the initial statement.

brightball 4y ago
I hear his name a lot but never actually saw anything he did. What type of stuff does he do?
- booleandilemma 4y ago
  He debates college kids, basically. He's in the same league as Jordan Peterson, another pseudo-intellectual. These are our thought leaders in 2022.
  - simonh 4y ago
    If a (former) tenured and now emeritus professor doesn't count as an intellectual, I'm not sure who would. I have found he seems to have started falling for his own hype recently though. He was fascinating up until a few years ago, and even on the things I disagreed with him on he was worth listening to, but is turning into a parody of himself.
    - kemayo 4y ago
      My impression of him has always been that he's one of those people who would never use one word when one hundred words were available. If he has any good ideas (and I'm skeptical based on what little I've seen and also his dissolution), it's so buried under academic-sounding rambling that working them out is more trouble than it's worth.
- impalallama 4y ago
  Basically this generations Rush Limbaugh. Very popular Youngish conservative commentator that hosts a successfully podcast/radioshow.

angarg12 4y ago

Sounds to me like intolerant groups that abuse tolerance to push their agendas, or authoritative regimes that invoke free speech to push propaganda that undermines freedom. Would you say those belong in the same category.