Besides really not liking the good/bad faith categorization as I described in another comment, another thing I think this article misses is the personal benefit of communicating more openly with someone else. I feel much more relaxed and proud when I open up and tell someone what I'm feeling and why I think I believe what I do than when I insult them for their beliefs. It may not "win" the argument and it may not even get them to open up, but it gets me to open up and I have seen so many benefits to that, even if the other person doesn't "play" with me.

> I think this page is a great definition of what is happening, but a poor prescription of what to do about it.

I strongly strongly agree. Notice how even in this, I'm not saying "you are 100% right", I'm still open to changing my perspective, and yes maybe partially it's because I find that even comments like this land better with the recipient when I express my perspective rather than assert a global truth, but mostly I feel much better saying it this way.

Anyway, I could talk about this stuff for days, it's what I do for work, teaching myself and others how to communicate to better resolve such conflict. Doesn't meant I'm "right" just means I spend a lotttt of time thinking about this stuff.

> Anyway, I could talk about this stuff for days, it's what I do for work, teaching myself and others how to communicate to better resolve such conflict.

How do you approach conflict resulting from bad faith interaction? How do you deescalate such conflict?

I find one of the most effective ways has been for me to try to feel closer to them first. I think a lot of conflict leads into attacks, such as blame, guilt tripping, rejection, etc, and so I practice replying to such attacks in a way where I might feel closer to them after than when I started. To get back on the same team, per say. It doesn't mean they will, but I've found that if at least think they're on my team, then I'm more likely to engage with them openly and they may come around to do the same.

I practice three main steps: 1) tell the truth about how I'm actually feeling 2) tell them how I imagine they might be feeling, and 3) say one thing to connect with love. If I do the first two steps well, then the third comes more easily.

There are other tactics, such as separating behavior from person: "I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at what you said, and I'm telling you because I care about you." Or really expressing uncertainty: "I don't know what to do anymore" (as long as I genuinely don't know what to do)

I'd say overall the goal is for me to feel closer to them, for me to resolve my conflict with them, and then maybe they'll resolve their side as well, but not required.

Does that make sense?

Nitpick: “per say” -> “per se” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/per_se Not sure if autoincorrect but it is a common mistake.

Oh it definitely was intentional and I'm grateful you pointed this out. I had no idea I had been using it wrong, probably most of my life. Thank you :-)

In looking more at the definition, I don't even know if it makes sense in that sentence even if I did spell it right lol.