A well-written article, especially clearly listing out the differences in the forms of communication helped make the point.
But sadly, the people most prone to bad-faith communication are also probably least likely to take this criticism and improve. I have also resorted to bad-faith communications in conversations where it seems like that is the only way to be heard.
Consider this example:
Person A, displaying some humility, says : "You might be right, there is a chance politician X is in the wrong".
Person A assumes this is interpreted by Person B as: "There is uncertainty about politician X being in the wrong"
Person B actually interprets this as: "Person A has admitted, without any doubt, to politician X being completely in the wrong"
If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate?
Consider this example: Person A, displaying some humility, says : "You might be right, there is a chance politician X is in the wrong". Person A assumes this is interpreted by Person B as: "There is uncertainty about politician X being in the wrong" Person B actually interprets this as: "Person A has admitted, without any doubt, to politician X being completely in the wrong"
If I ever find myself in a conversation where I'm in the shoes of Person A, using good-faith communication means actually risking a complete failure of communication. Why even bother to communicate?