site banner
zackmdavis  8mo ago (lesswrong.com)   1882 thread views

Assume Bad Faith

lesswrong.com

A short essay about why I don't think "bad faith" is the best ontology for thinking about people having hidden motives during arguments, which I think is more ubiquitous than the term implies.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Good post, I largely agree with your point. This part in particular is relevant:

If I'm doing full-contact psychoanalysis, the problem with "I don't think you're here in good faith" is that it's insufficiently specific. Rather than accusing someone of generic "bad faith", the way to move the discussion forward is by positing that one's interlocutor has some specific motive that hasn't yet been made explicit---and the way to defend oneself against such an accusation is by making the case that one's real agenda isn't the one being proposed, rather than protesting one's "good faith" and implausibly claiming not to have an agenda.

I get accused of bad faith regularly (whether the accusation is earnest and made in "good faith" is another question) and I agree completely that a naked denial doesn't accomplish anything. Like you, I usually can see what the accusation is based on and so what I do is acknowledge that the suspicion is reasonable (it often is!) and then explain why it's wrong. If I can't see what it's based on, then I ask something along "what could convince you otherwise?" Sometimes there's nothing that could dislodge the truck stuck in the mud, and it's good to know that.

I find that this is a useful approach in everyday personal disagreements too because a lot of them are spawned out of suspicions. If someone shirks on a household chore, maybe it's because they genuinely forgot OR MAYBE it's because they are driven by animus and hatred towards their roommates. If the shirking continues as part of a regular pattern, it's perfectly reasonable for the roommates to become drawn to the latter hypothesis.

To your broader point, accusing someone of bad faith doesn't really accomplish much, and your proposed solutions (just stick to the object level or, in the alternative and if the circumstances warrant it, full-contact psychoanalysis) seem perfectly appropriate.

I get accused of bad faith regularly (whether the accusation is earnest and made in "good faith" is another question) and I agree completely that a naked denial doesn't accomplish anything. Like you, I usually can see what the accusation is based on and so what I do is acknowledge that the suspicion is reasonable (it often is!) and then explain why it's wrong. If I can't see what it's based on, then I ask something along "what could convince you otherwise?" Sometimes there's nothing that could dislodge the truck stuck in the mud, and it's good to know that.

This hits for me, in that I like your reasoning and most of your positions, but every once in a while, and predictably, I'm all like "that motherfucker!", and it's not because I'm frustrated by your argumental wizardry but more that it feels like you are being deliberately obtuse and/or using Dark Arts or just being somehow hypocritical or applying double standards. But really, I think it's just a value difference. We all are hypocritical and apply double standards according to our values.

I love your approach in the latter half of the quoted paragraph. I am also a fan of Rogerian Argument where the objective is to find the largest areas of agreement, push those boundaries as far as possible, and just understand the areas of disagreement and map them out. Accusations and denials are discouraged.

Let's see if we can put what I said into action! I have to sort of read between the lines in your reply but that's part of the exercise.

I sometimes do engage in conduct that can be plausibly described as deceptive, at least temporarily so, so maybe that's what you had in mind? This example from a few months ago matches, where I ran what I called an "experiment" to test if another user was being consistent. I see this as similar to the grievance studies affair hoax, and even defended Matt Walsh securing interviews under false/misleading pretenses. I think the distinction here is that the charade lasts only as long as necessary to make the point, and there's no reason for me to extend it beyond that.

Regarding being deliberately obtuse, I'm not totally sure what would fit but I do frequently ask questions I (likely) already know the answer to. I do this because it would be unfair for me to assume someone holds a position they don't, and also because it's helpful to hear the position articulated by my interlocutor. Without those two aims, I don't see what would be advanced by me just feigning ignorance but if you think I'm doing that, call me out.

I've heard the Dark Arts a few times and it's amusing to me. I don't have any special powers! Especially in writing. I admit that my personality could give me an unfair advantage in a real-time conversation, and I further admit that I have exploited that ability at work to more-or-less verbally browbeat a witness into stumbling over words in court. I wouldn't do that in something like the Bailey, and so far no one I've recorded with has ever accused me of that. My goal in a courtroom isn't truth-seeking, so I have no concerns about deploying the Arts there.

I feel desperately allergic to being hypocritical or applying any double standards, so I would urge you to call me out whenever you see it happening.

Thanks for letting me know about Rogerian Argument :)

Belated appreciation from me. I did not intend my criticism so literally, but this level of honesty is becoming.

Also, I just learned about Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules:

In a summary of Dennett's version of Rapoport's rules, Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay pointed out that an important part of how Rapoport's rules work is by modeling prosocial behavior: one party demonstrates respect and intellectual openness so that the other party can emulate those characteristics, which would be less likely to occur in intensely adversarial conditions.

Boghossian and Lindsay (Jimmy Concepts) are practitioners of Rogerian Argument. The aggressive form, but nonetheless an update towards.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats