Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexb_ | Hacker News Reader

This article is great at explaining many differences between good and bad faith communication, but repeatedly asserts that bad communication = wars, violence, etc while providing no proof or argument to support that claim.

In reality, we are in a world where there is absolutely 0 reason to be arguing in good faith for anything you truly care about. The most effective way you convince people of something is using all of the bad faith tactics listed here - you get no bonus points from the audience for avoiding these, since a very small amount of people are willing to say something about it, and by avoiding these tactics you are just letting your opponents use them to gain an upper hand.

If there is something you truly care about, something that you think swaying general opinion could make a real difference in your life, arguing in "good faith" is foolish.

View on HN

It's not foolish. Aldous Huxley explained why in his Ends and Means, more than eighty years ago.

Ends don't justify means. On the contrary, if the only way to achieve some end are nefarious means, it's a very strong signal that the end itself is not as desirable as it seems.

Most times, people sell their souls only to find later that they can't get what they paid for.

Game theory 101. You want to build a good/better world? Then don't be shit. Don't contribute to shit dynamics. Build a sustainable culture where people listen to each other. I'll never get how this isn't ingrained to reasonable people from the get-go

It is, but sometimes it's difficult even when you're trying; and of course, not everybody is reasonable.

There might be only one Pareto Optimal solution, but there can be many Nash Equilibrium solutions.

Also, humans are not 100% rational agents.

Why would you ever say that?

Facebook is suffering a slow death from burning up all it's good will on bad faith money grabs. The news feed could still be the place where people discuss their lives, but close to zero people trust facebook anymore.

Mental note: alexb_ will lie to my face.

I'm not saying that is how it should be. I'm saying that's how it is. You earn no sympathy from the audience by only using logic and reason - in order to make change in the world, you must additionally use fallacies, diversions, personal attacks, false equivalencies, and every other trick in the book. If you refuse to use these, you will lose to those who do, every single time. It does not matter how well thought out, reasonable, logical, or correct your argument is if you can't convince anyone.

"Guys we have to use any effective tactic possible in the book to win, even lies and cruelty!"

>"You mean like the possible tactic of not posting an open exhortation to lie and be cruel, so as to maintain beneficial optics?"

"..."

You played yourself.

You think I'm playing any side? Of what argument exactly? I'm just telling people how the world is working. I don't really care what you think of me in particular lmao

I looked through some of your comments and I agree with the sentiments expressed in many of them. I had actually already +1'd a small handful of them. I do have to wonder what you actually believe though since, in your pragmatism you have already stated a maxim to sacrifice truth/honesty for power. Regardless of which side(s) you are actually on, you are playing yourself if you are going to live by this model of reality and doubly so if you then go on to openly espouse it. In my absolutist mentality, it is better to be 100% honest, for the sake of the truth, because in it you can prove your trustworthiness to somebody and have a real connection at least with them, even if the whole rest of the world totally sucks. Even if your enemies do cut you down one day through grimy means, you still at least lived some of your life in truth. That's a life worth living. A life spent consciously engaging in dirty tactics is not.

You have said you don't care what I think, but I have little certitude to believe you really mean that, so I will say it; I think you are totally lost until you back up and reconsider this line of reasoning.

One only needs to look at the spiral leading to both world wars to see that there is absolutely a good reason to communicate in good faith.

Tragedy of the commons right here.

Neither world war was caused by bad faith communication nor could have been resolved by any form of communication. This is a hopelessly naive take.

Yes, in times of war the truth and with it good faith communication is one of the first things to go. This is a symptom, not a cause of war.

The view that every conflict can be solved by good faith communication in a for both sides acceptable manner is insane.

If one side wants to murder all people with a certain intrinsic attribute be it race, sexual orientation or whatever and the other side does not want to be murdered, there is no compromise to be made. The people of the first group will never engage in good faith with the later group that they view as subhuman. Any attempt to establish good faith communication will only HURT the later group.

Another lesson from Munich etc. is that it might be a good idea to go to violence pre-emptively when it becomes clear someone is communicating in bad faith.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com