Assume good motives (often called assume good faith on HN) is an excellent standard to follow with one proviso: It can be taken too far.
If you don't know their motives, assume good motives or good faith. But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such, continuing to assume good faith amounts to cutting your own throat.
I think when you don't "pretend assume good faith", you end up making less convincing counter arguments, and communicate less well in general, plus many other negative things.
> But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such,
... you don't have to assume, right? So I see no reason it is overly contradicting and would render that rule void.
Over here, to assume good faith is required by law to be the standard mode, you have to expect it otherwise society would crumble. IMHO you can't take and stress this far enough, and I can't imagine where it can be taken too far. But yes, please don't ignore your intellect.
Once the assumption of good faith is broken, the conversation is basically fucked anyway. May as well say goodbye (if you want to be helpful to subsequent passerby-by, leave a note about why you think the other person isn’t engaging in good faith, so subsequent passers-by don’t end up taking their arguments too seriously).
Even if they have good motives, it’s sometimes difficult. You cannot keep compensating for other people’s deficiencies. You are not Atlas to be able to bear the weight of the whole world.
Some people would like to see themselves as good people with good intentions but all too often their actions are actively counterproductive, a la The Shirky Principle that organizations tend to keep alive the problem they were created to address.
Some people just have broken mental models and then fail to update them when their efforts consistently prove "this does not actually work." We all make mistakes, but if you keep making the same mistake without any improvement, at some point others should stop making excuses for you.
Yes, intentions =/= faith, the article has that, too, even including ones' own ego:
Put Error to Work
> But let’s never, never, cover up error with the misguided
thought that we must protect someone — either our brother,
or our department, or our own pet ego. The recognition of
error and its examination, if openly talked of, is a sure
way to avoid its being repeated, either by the same man
or by others. Everyone errs at one time or another. The
Company pays for it. Okay. But the Company should not
have to pay twice. Nor should other men be denied the
benefit of warning-signs.
Yeah I don’t agree you can make or should attempt to have a universal policy to follow in your interactions with others. The situation matters , the relationship to the person matters. Those two variables can branch off to policies. Interacting with any stranger in real life for example - What about the cost benefit analysis of these interactions. Benefit - in my entire life I can say I never received any longstanding benefit. Costs - throughout my life I have incurred an incredible amount of trouble and problems from interacting with strangers when I have not instigated the interaction. Therefore you should assume bad faith even danger and not interact going forward for all strangers that approach you.
If you don't know their motives, assume good motives or good faith. But if they explicitly tell you they have hostile motives or the preponderance of the evidence suggests such, continuing to assume good faith amounts to cutting your own throat.