Endgames of Bad Communication - Consilience Project
source:: https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication/
Good and Bad Faith Communication
From ref_consilience-project-endgames-of-bad-communication
Good faith
Discourse oriented towards mutual understanding and coordinated action, with the result of increasing the faith that participants have in the value of communicating now and in the future.
Some signs of good faith communication:
- expressions of humility and curiosity
- Openings for changes in position based on new information
- Disagreements welcomed; group learning valued
- Steelmanning the position of others
- Respect maintained during disagreement
- Sufficient time given to open discussion and other aspects of fair process
- Use of careful clarifications and evidence
- Attempts at finding shared base realities and values
- Emergence of new positions, integrations, and nuance
Good faith engagement is not merely an overzealous search for agreement. It primarily seeks to generate for all parties faith in the value of communication.
Bad faith
Discourse that is intended to achieve behavioral outcomes (including consensus, agreement, “likes”) irrespective of achieving true mutual understanding, with the result of decreasing the faith participants have in the value of communicating now and in the future.
Some Signs of Bad Faith Communication:
- Expressions of hubris and lack of curiosity in opposing views
- Refusing changes in position based on new information
- Disagreements unwelcomed; consensus overstated
- Strawmanning the position of others
- Disrespect included as part of disagreement
- Insufficient time and other aspects of unfair process
- Avoidance or omission of careful clarifications and evidence
- No attempts to find shared base realities and values
- Emergence of stalemates, polarization, and simplifications
Faking it
Good faith communication can be “faked” in bad faith. Bad faith communications can be disguised and denied.
No formula
Highly-skilled good faith communication cannot be made routine or formulized. if so, it would become a good faith signal, tarnishing its credibility and allowing it to be faked in bad faith.
From ref_consilience-project-endgames-of-bad-communication
Good faith
Discourse oriented towards mutual understanding and coordinated action, with the result of increasing the faith that participants have in the value of communicating now and in the future.
Some signs of good faith communication:
- expressions of humility and curiosity
- Openings for changes in position based on new information
- Disagreements welcomed; group learning valued
- Steelmanning the position of others
- Respect maintained during disagreement
- Sufficient time given to open discussion and other aspects of fair process
- Use of careful clarifications and evidence
- Attempts at finding shared base realities and values
- Emergence of new positions, integrations, and nuance
Good faith engagement is not merely an overzealous search for agreement. It primarily seeks to generate for all parties faith in the value of communication.
Bad faith
Discourse that is intended to achieve behavioral outcomes (including consensus, agreement, “likes”) irrespective of achieving true mutual understanding, with the result of decreasing the faith participants have in the value of communicating now and in the future.
Some Signs of Bad Faith Communication:
- Expressions of hubris and lack of curiosity in opposing views
- Refusing changes in position based on new information
- Disagreements unwelcomed; consensus overstated
- Strawmanning the position of others
- Disrespect included as part of disagreement
- Insufficient time and other aspects of unfair process
- Avoidance or omission of careful clarifications and evidence
- No attempts to find shared base realities and values
- Emergence of stalemates, polarization, and simplifications
Faking it
Good faith communication can be “faked” in bad faith. Bad faith communications can be disguised and denied.
No formula
Highly-skilled good faith communication cannot be made routine or formulized. if so, it would become a good faith signal, tarnishing its credibility and allowing it to be faked in bad faith.
Extreme political ends often assume the other side cannot be trusted to engage in good faith without setting traps - this sets off a mutual dismissal/distrust spiral.
the culture war is a source of profit (via conflict and attention capture). it’s a dirty war that leaches externalities into families, relationships and identity structures.
without a change in this overall trend, authorities are likely to use force/censorship/disenfranchisement to secure social coordination. antithetical to open societies.
highly-skilled, non-naive good faith communication seeks to increase - for all parties - their faith in the value of ongoing communication. the goal is to act in ways that generate faith in the value of future communication.