This doesn't protect someone (or a whole society) from bad actors who know how to exploit the assumption of positive intent. This might work for arguing with Aunt Tillie at Thanksgiving dinner, but it's a loophole actively exploited by people in power whose motives run counter to what's good, in general, for society as a whole. See: tobacco executives, climate change deniers, those who profit off anti-vaxx sentiment, televangelists, etc.
Engaging people and meeting them where they are, with honest discussion, can sometimes turn an ardent detractor of something positive into an ardent supporter of something positive.
Can't win if you don't try. :).
"Ardent detractors" aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about bad faith actors who understand exactly what is harmful about their position and are choosing that position anyway, because their incentives are aligned with maintaining the harmful situation. These aren't people you can engage in good faith with precisely because they will use your assumption of good faith against you.
Works well with most people, but not with the >1% who actually don’t have positive intent.
That becomes real clear once you've asked enough questions.
To you, presumably, but not necessarily to others.
...and then you'll have to ask all the same questions with the next person in that group, or maybe even the next time the same person talks, because an intentional part of the tactics involved is to waste the time of people who assume positive intent.
How is it clear that people are intentionally wasting the time of those who assume positive intent?
Intentions are never ‘clear’, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a factor.
I think the existence of trolling is the prima fascia case for this. Unless you believe that trolling doesn’t exist.
True -- my default is to assume that people are not trolls unless they are repeatedly inflammatory and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion of any kind.
I see that primarily in heated internet conversations that touch on identity and ego, such as politics and religion (programming language/technology religion included!). On such topics, there very often is bad faith, perhaps more often than not (feels like it!). In such cases, trying to pinpoint the intentions of every participant in every single interaction is exhausting and typically pointless. The solution is to avoid those topics like the plague in the first place, if you have a choice, unless it's with people you trust. In most other cases, you can (and should) productively assume good faith. Usually.
Yeah, but then the problem is that politics, the topic that invites a ton bad faith tactics, also has tons of real life repercussions. And if you just try to ignore it because of the bad faith stuff, then the people with the bad faith arguments are more likely to get their way. So it sucks to engage, but there’s not any other great choice.
Good point! It's tough: what's good for the individual may not be best for society at large. Thanks to those who do endure and engage in a positive way with the genuine intent to make a difference. It's surely not easy in the environment we have today.