4 ms·

> Why on EARTH would I 'assume good faith'? Am I a moron? Assuming bad faith will never result in convergence. Assuming good faith could result in convergence

> Why on EARTH would I 'assume good faith'? Am I a moron? Assuming bad faith will never result in convergence. Assuming good faith could result in convergence, even if you think the probability is low. Therefore converging on truth, or at least shared opinion, must start with assuming good faith. Of course if you're not actually interested in those things, then I can't help with that.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Don’t “assume” either one. Use the evidence you have and your own intellect to discriminate between the two.
- Jensson 4y ago
  At least try to assume enough good faith that you would see yourself as arguing in good faith if you argued for the other side. Most people don't even pass that low bar though, they demand that others assume way more good faith than they themselves do, that is the kind of people who need to hear this advice.
- DoughnutHole 4y ago
  Why would you bother engaging someone in conversation at all if you didn't assume they were engaging in good faith? If I'm going to assume there's a 50% chance the person I'm talking to is engaging in bad faith I'd rather do something more productive like scream my opinions out my window. "Assuming good faith" is potentially a fantasy, but it's a useful fantasy for encouraging quality conversation.
  - rnd0 4y ago
    >Why would you bother engaging someone in conversation at all if you didn't assume they were engaging in good faith? Not all interactions are a conversation -at least not necessarily an on-going one. For instance, in a political thread you may choose to reply to a very obvious troll simply for the sake of countering misinformation -not because you want to run off and get married to them. >If I'm going to assume there's a 50% chance the person I'm talking to is engaging in bad faith I'd rather do something more productive like scream my opinions out my window. Fair. "Don't read the comments" has become a proverb for a reason. That said -there are times and places where it's useful (for your own sake) to interact.
- naasking 4y ago
  Sure, adjust your conclusions as the conversation evolves, but that first interaction requires an assumption of good faith to make conversation possible to begin with. It's like how tit-for-tat has been the most effective long-term strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments. An agent employing this strategy always starts by cooperating as it's first choice, and only switches to defecting after you've defected first.
  - ruszki 4y ago
    The possibility of good faith is enough to start a conversation. However, there is an inverse correlation of this probability, and how likely I will start a conversation, at least for me.
rnd0 4y ago
[flagged]
- 324tgresgw 4y ago
  > I have literally no idea what you mean by "convergence" (in this context), so I'm going to guess that no; I'm not. Particularly since you appear to be using it as a rhetorical cudgel (meaning a stick to hit someone over the head with). You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating what "bad faith" means.
  - rnd0 4y ago
    Actually, I'm being completely honest and forthright. I have not seen that term used in that context and the context was particularly passive-agressive (itself a sign of bad faith). From my point of view, the post that I replied to was made in bad faith ...eg laying on the snark (which is against HN guidelines, btw). Yes, I know "it takes two to tango", but on the other hand...It Takes Two To Tango. The patronizing snark was unwarranted and itself a sign of bad faith.
    - 324tgresgw 4y ago
      You hopefully realize that a sentence like "Who in the flying fuck are you to assume that I need help of any sort?" is not a very constructive way of arguing and usually disqualifies the writer from any form of civilized discussion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bryan0 4y ago
  I think you are replying in good faith but you are overreacting to the “help” comment which I do not think was intended to be offensive. I think “convergence” is a good term which the Parent used, and based on the context I would interpret it as a “shared understanding” or mutually benficial exchange of ideas. Convergence also implies agreement and maybe partial agreement could be a part of that, but even “agreeing to disagree” seems like a good faith outcome. So do some people post without this intent? I’m sure they do but I will always assume the opposite until they prove otherwise.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

Don’t “assume” either one. Use the evidence you have and your own intellect to discriminate between the two.

Jensson 4y ago
At least try to assume enough good faith that you would see yourself as arguing in good faith if you argued for the other side. Most people don't even pass that low bar though, they demand that others assume way more good faith than they themselves do, that is the kind of people who need to hear this advice.
DoughnutHole 4y ago
Why would you bother engaging someone in conversation at all if you didn't assume they were engaging in good faith? If I'm going to assume there's a 50% chance the person I'm talking to is engaging in bad faith I'd rather do something more productive like scream my opinions out my window. "Assuming good faith" is potentially a fantasy, but it's a useful fantasy for encouraging quality conversation.
- rnd0 4y ago
  >Why would you bother engaging someone in conversation at all if you didn't assume they were engaging in good faith? Not all interactions are a conversation -at least not necessarily an on-going one. For instance, in a political thread you may choose to reply to a very obvious troll simply for the sake of countering misinformation -not because you want to run off and get married to them. >If I'm going to assume there's a 50% chance the person I'm talking to is engaging in bad faith I'd rather do something more productive like scream my opinions out my window. Fair. "Don't read the comments" has become a proverb for a reason. That said -there are times and places where it's useful (for your own sake) to interact.
naasking 4y ago
Sure, adjust your conclusions as the conversation evolves, but that first interaction requires an assumption of good faith to make conversation possible to begin with. It's like how tit-for-tat has been the most effective long-term strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma tournaments. An agent employing this strategy always starts by cooperating as it's first choice, and only switches to defecting after you've defected first.
- ruszki 4y ago
  The possibility of good faith is enough to start a conversation. However, there is an inverse correlation of this probability, and how likely I will start a conversation, at least for me.

rnd0 4y ago

[flagged]

324tgresgw 4y ago
> I have literally no idea what you mean by "convergence" (in this context), so I'm going to guess that no; I'm not. Particularly since you appear to be using it as a rhetorical cudgel (meaning a stick to hit someone over the head with). You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating what "bad faith" means.
- rnd0 4y ago
  Actually, I'm being completely honest and forthright. I have not seen that term used in that context and the context was particularly passive-agressive (itself a sign of bad faith). From my point of view, the post that I replied to was made in bad faith ...eg laying on the snark (which is against HN guidelines, btw). Yes, I know "it takes two to tango", but on the other hand...It Takes Two To Tango. The patronizing snark was unwarranted and itself a sign of bad faith.
  - 324tgresgw 4y ago
    You hopefully realize that a sentence like "Who in the flying fuck are you to assume that I need help of any sort?" is not a very constructive way of arguing and usually disqualifies the writer from any form of civilized discussion.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bryan0 4y ago
I think you are replying in good faith but you are overreacting to the “help” comment which I do not think was intended to be offensive. I think “convergence” is a good term which the Parent used, and based on the context I would interpret it as a “shared understanding” or mutually benficial exchange of ideas. Convergence also implies agreement and maybe partial agreement could be a part of that, but even “agreeing to disagree” seems like a good faith outcome. So do some people post without this intent? I’m sure they do but I will always assume the opposite until they prove otherwise.