I’ve been thinking today about how it can sometimes be really hard to communicate with people. And this is sometimes just a double-empathy thing and we need to do work to try and meet people in the middle. But then there are those instances where actually, someone just wants you to think that you’re being difficult because…

All text below is quoted verbatim from https://consilienceproject.org/the-endgames-of-bad-faith-communication/:

Good Faith Communication

Discourse oriented towards mutual understanding and coordinated action, with the result of increasing the faith that participants have in the value of communicating.

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

Note: All signs of good faith communication can be “faked” in bad faith.

Bad Faith Communication

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.

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

Note: All signs of bad faith communication can be disguised and denied.

Common Strategies of Bad Faith Communication

Misleading with facts
Presenting an argument containing factual information, which is used intentionally to lead others to draw a conclusion that is not entirely accurate.

White hat bias
Presuming one’s own moral and intellectual correctness, then using that assumption as righteous justification for communications that are intentionally deceptive and manipulative.

Strawman arguments
Presenting the arguments of opponents in their weakest forms, and after dismissing those, claiming to have discredited their position as a whole.

Ad hominem dismissal
Disparaging the character or person of others, and in so doing acting as if this also invalidated their arguments.

Moving the goalposts
Establishing an agreed standard (criteria or data) for accepting others’ views, but once this is provided or met, the prior agreement is not mentioned, and a new standard is set. [The reverse case also applies, i.e., when one cannot meet the agreed standards, these standards are forgotten, and new ones are established.]

Sanctimony
Acting as if oneself and/or group is unquestionably morally superior and more intelligent than specific disagreeable individuals or groups, and thereby devaluing the members and delegitimating all the views of that group.

Appeals to authority
Deeming that one’s own authority, that of a favorite expert, or that of an associated institution, definitively establishes positions currently being contested, therefore no further communication or explanation is needed and the arguments of the disagreeable parties can be dismissed.  

Dehumanizing language
Deploying language that characterizes groups as irredeemably unreasonable and not worthy of consideration, and thereby suggesting such groups should not be engaged in good faith.

Undue social pressure
Making arguments in ways that signal that disagreement will result in removal or disparagement from the in-group, as demands for behavioral conformity override the power of reason and evidence. This includes “canceling ,” deplatforming, unfollowing, blocking, boycotting, trolling, etc.

Pejorative representations
Employing openly insulting and dismissive language when describing the persons, ideas, or practices of disagreeable groups, thereby justifying the discounting of their arguments without earnest consideration.

Faking empathy and respect
Pretending to feel empathy and respect for disagreeable others in a manner that undermines their actual experiences and beliefs— “strawman empathy.”

Equivocations and false logics
Engaging involved and detailed forms of argument that are nevertheless fallacious and misleading due to subtle (and not so subtle) logical mistakes, such as strategically conflating and misusing terms (equivocation).

Manipulative framing
Using metaphors and emotional frames to lead preemptively to conclusions that are not fully suggested by the details of the argument.

Villainization
Creating the image of an “anti-hero” who epitomizes the worst of the disagreeable group, and contrasts with the best qualities of one’s own, then characterizing all members of the other group as if they were identical to that image.

Oversimplification
Intentionally focusing on only a few (or the wrong) variables when drawing conclusions about complex systems, while also dismissing as irrelevant or misleading the views of those seeking to include more variables for consideration.

Complexity smoke screen
Bringing an overwhelming amount of complex information to an argument and in so doing strategically downplaying a smaller, less complex set of variables that are actually more meaningful to the topic under discussion.

Delighted to see that the CofE has finally chosen to (partially) divest from fossil fuels. But there’s a certain muteness re: mea culpa here. Bill McKibben puts it best in his newsletter today: “in the early weeks of the divestment campaign in 2012 I traveled to London, in part for a meeting with the CofE executives. They were…totally disdainful of the divestment campaign, insisting that their approach of ‘engaging’ with these companies would work.”

I have also experienced this disdainful attitude, which was not quietly held, but on quite public and triumphalistic display by leaders across a variety of events including the CofE presence at COP and a variety of policy workshops. To be fair, many activists have been actively challenging this attitude, but it has been entrenched for decades.

There is some really interesting work to be done here, analysing how this came to be, the (not small) impacts that this public display had across a variety of fora where these executives shared their “leadership” on sustainable investing and how resilient this position will be in light of future pressures.

I’ve just done a bit of updating to my “so you want to apply to do a PhD?” guide. Anyone interested in the subject is welcome to consult https://gitea.sailf.in/kidwellj/phd_application_advice. Suggestions from colleagues towards revision also welcome.