The defn. of good and bad faith for me is this.

Imagine two actors dialoging.

They speak basically the same language.  The live in roughly similar
worlds of daily life.  So they have very compatible models of mapping
language to meaning.  (meaning being the "internal" idea represented
in the mind of the actor)

So they speak back and forth using a language which i imagine like
a scaffolding.  A scaffolding representing the actors internal
meaning.  Like the word red means red.  We assume that the
scaffolding/language of "red" is like 99% compatible with both
actors internal meaning of "red".

They language of red does not exactly match what one actor has in
their head.  And it doesn't match exactly what the other actor has
in their head.  And the internal meaning of each actor's "red" does
not match eacg other.  But they all are very close.  For basic
concepts this won't matter and I can write out a shopping list for
you and you can go buy it at the store, and even though there are
three shopping lists, you get either exactly what the author of the
list intended, or so close that it's not worth remarking on.

So I take take internal meaning and turn it into words and you take
those words and turn it into your own internal meaning.  And vice
versa.  We do this back and forth.  A dialog.  This is the stage.
If this setup is a problem for you then stop reading.

Now.

When people are familiar with each other they will have short circuit
understanding of anothers meaning.  You might mean something that
I think does not fit the scaffolding of language they used.  There
is always some non-zero gap between what someone says (the words)
and what they mean.  When two normal humans with brains dialog they
are aware of both of these.

When you speak I am aware that your words are not "the same" as
your meaning.  (Assume I say "and vice versa" like wherever it fits,
like right here.)

Like I don't always understand the words 100% and I especially don't
always understand your meaning 100%.  But I am consious of both.
(vice versa)

So. If you say something and I know what you mean but I think your
words didn't express that, I can act as if that is what you meant.
THIS IS BAD FAITH.  This is a horrible way to dialog.  This leads
to getting punched in the face, because then there's no words to
be intentionally misunderstood.

Good faith on the other hand is when you say something and I know
what you meant.  And I respond knowing that.

The obvious but naive counter is that this promotes innaccuraccies.
It leads to people veering off course from each others meanings.
No, that is why I had to construct this stage.  The point is that
there is always a non-zero gap between meaning and word represantaion.
And there is only a common word representation.  There is no common
meaning.  The meaning is different for each actor always everytime
all the time.  This chaos is the norm.  Good faith dialog is a way
to stear your ships at sea closer not farther.


When people are familiar with each other they will have short circuit
understanding of anothers meaning.  You might mean something that
I think does not fit the scaffolding of language they used.  There
is always some non-zero gap between what someone says (the words)
and what they mean.  When two normal humans with brains dialog they
are aware of both of these.

When you speak I am aware that your words are not "the same" as
your meaning.  (assume I say "and vice versa" like wherever it fits,
like right here.)