Gurus and The Science of Bullshit

On the use, receptivity, and detection of bullshit

No. 17A, 1948, Jackson Pollock. Sold for $200M.

Life-force is the knowledge of awareness, and of us.

~ New Age Bullshit generator

Since the publication of philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s 1986 essay “On Bullshit”, the term ‘bullshit’ has increasingly gained acceptance as a technical term. Bullshit is not only philosophically interesting, but since about 2015, it has been of interest to scientists as well. Frankfurt defines bullshit as communicating without regard for the truth. Bullshit is distinctive from lying, in that lying is an intentional act of deception. In other words, the bullshitter doesn’t give a damn what’s true, whereas the liar knows the truth and prefers that it didn’t come out.

There are different ways to bullshit someone. For instance, one can use bullshit to stretch the truth to impress or persuade others.

This is known as ‘persuasive bullshitting’. Persuasive bullshitters have been shown to overclaim their knowledge in multiple domains, and even claim knowledge of fictitious concepts. These are the inventors and spreaders of fake news. Take our former bullshitter in chief, for example:

“I could be the most popular person in Europe. I could be – I could run for any office if I wanted to, but I don’t want to.”

For Trump, it is not about what is true or false, it is simply about him, and what his followers think of him. Here, he is trying to persuade his audience that he is wildly popular in Europe, and he nor his audience cares one iota whether it is true. What makes Trump such an impressive bullshitter is not how well he does it, but the frequency with which he does it. The phrase “flooding the zone with shit” is apt here. Trump will lie at a rate that fact-checkers simply cannot keep up with. This causes a lack of accountability, which is what allows this kind of bullshit to proliferate.

Another form, called evasive bullshitting, is used to evade the truth when a direct answer would incur negative consequences.

When asked a critical question that is a little too on the nose, politicians will respond with a word salad that contains enough buzzwords to pass as an acceptable answer. To pick on the current administration, take Kamala Harris, for example. This is her response to being asked about soaring gas prices amidst the Russo-Ukrainian war:

“We have to address the fact that we have got to deal with the fact that folks are paying for gas, paying for groceries, and are -- need solutions to it. So let's talk about that… Short-term solution includes what we need to do around the supply chain, right? So, we went to the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Savannah, Georgia, and said, 'Hey, guys, no more five days a week, eight hours a day; 24/7, let's move the products because people need their product – they need what they need.' We're dealing with it in terms of the long term. And that's about what we need to do to pass Build Back Better. It strengthens our economy.”

Harris empathizes with the ‘the folks’ by acknowledging that they “need solutions” (duh) and that this solution involves the supply chain (use of buzzwords). Then she continues to dress her word salad. Harris’ response here hides behind a veil of abstruseness, tediousness, and vacuousness which protects her from direct criticism or any specific follow-up questions. Her response is so messy that it is hard to know what points need clarification.

Persuasive bullshitting, as opposed to evasive bullshitting, has been positively correlated with lower cognitive ability. For the persuasive bullshitter, perceived profoundness is profoundness - a distinction that evasive bullshitters are better equipped to make. Persuasive bullshitters are high-frequency bullshitters, whereas evasive bullshitters use bullshit when necessary. Interestingly, those more likely to produce persuasive bullshit are worse at doing so. Those with higher cognitive ability are better at producing bullshit but feel less of a need to do it.

The Pseudo-Profound Bullshit (PPB) of Gurus

Some of the biggest promulgators of bullshit are people with large platforms (e.g., gurus, politicians, influencers, celebrities). These all share the quality of possessing a substantial influence over a loyal following, but gurus tack on a few other qualifiers. Gurus are perceived as universal experts, community leaders, sense-makers, and in some ways, meaning-makers. Given this definition, it is apparent that not all gurus are malevolent bullshitters. Some people would consider Carl Sagan a guru, yet his words were actually meaningful and interesting. This piece will not focus on the anodyne Carl Sagans of the world. Henceforth, I will refer to gurus in their more bullshit-prone, manipulative, and grandiose form.

Perhaps one of the most researched forms of bullshit has been pseudo-profound bullshit (PPB), and for a good reason. Much of the bullshit we get inundated with functions only as a signal of the author’s intelligence, insight, and importance - all the while communicating nothing of tangible value. A common example of this is Judith Butler’s award-winning (for bad writing) sentence:

“The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

Huh?

I can’t be bothered, but let me know in the comments if you were able to parse it. Whatever Butler is trying to say, it is clear that it could have been stated simpler. The fact that she chose not to make it simpler shows that her goals were that other than clear communication.

PPB doesn’t require that the reader gives up mid-sentence. PPB can be captured in most Deepak Chopra tweets. Trust me, you will not need to scroll far. Here’s a sample:

“Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.”

There are many advantages to framing your ideas in PPB. Gurus take advantage of the fact that comprehension requires that we accept statements as true. This is called the ‘Truth Default Theory’, and the evidence behind the phenomenon is quite robust. We expect that profound statements must mean something or are relevant in some way. When people with large platforms engage in PPB, we assume that our failure to grasp it can be chalked up to the inherent complexity and profundity of the statement. Indeed, our evaluations of profundity increase when the information is coming from a credible source. When faced with an obscure assertion, we have a choice of either interpreting it harshly (e.g. This assertion is unnecessarily complicated, and the author is a pretentious idiot) or interpreting it charitably (e.g. The messaging was complicated, but it had to be, for such an insightful idea).

Bullshit Receptivity (Being “Bullible”)

Besides offering a low-cost strategy for scoring social points and avoiding criticism, bullshit serves many purposes. For example, believing an authority’s bullshit gives us a shortcut to information that we otherwise would have to sort out ourselves. This shortcut usually serves us well (e.g., imagine that instead of memorizing calculus formulas, you had to derive them yourself!), but it also has significant costs. Bullibility has been correlated with a host of thinking errors, such as:

1. Overclaiming one’s knowledge.

2. Having a less analytical thinking style.

3. Detecting patterns in patternless images (Sorry, Jackson Pollock. It’s just not worth 200M).

4. Endorsing conspiracy theories.

5. Believing and sharing bullshit with others.

Our failure to detect bullshit can also be chalked up to ‘conflict-monitoring failures’ - we fail to realize when a claim contradicts other facts. It is not always obvious that a claim requires additional consideration. When we aren’t thinking critically or analytically, we are less likely to detect these conflicts. We are more bullible when prior trust is instilled, we don’t understand the assertion, or when the statement is pleasant to believe in, and so on.

Detecting Bullshit

Bullshit can be pernicious, but luckily, there are ways to detect it. Dual processing theory divides our thinking into two systems:

• System 1 (‘Thinking fast’): automatic, intuitive, emotional thinking (e.g., “Stick with your gut”)

• System 2 (‘Thinking slow’): deliberative, effortful, and reflective thinking (e.g., “Sleep on it”)

Unsurprisingly, system 2 thinking is what allows for increased conflict-detection (i.e., bullshit-detection). Careful deliberation serves as a protective factor against mistaking the vacuous for the profound. When you are trying to understand some bullshit, look at the relevant evidence and follow the logic to its conclusion. Conspiracy theorists fail to do this. Consider the 9/11 truth conspiracies, which claim that 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ orchestrated by the US government to start a war with Iraq. Following this idea to its logical conclusion only leads to questions (e.g., Why not simply start a war with Iraq?; Wouldn’t this require thousands of collaborators to make this happen?; Why hasn’t anyone spoken out?).

Another logical error bullible people make is that they fail to consider prior probabilities. As the old adage goes: “When you hear hoofbeats, don’t look for a zebra.” So too with the fanciful claims of bullshitters. Always ask yourself, “How likely is this to be true, in general?” This is why bullshitters focus on anecdotes to prove their points (e.g., “But I knew someone who…”).

Bulliberation (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

To liberate oneself from bullshit, one must recognize that we have all played the bullshitter and bullshitted. Recognize what you want to be true and note that this is probably leading to confirmation bias. Practice questioning your beliefs, and weigh the evidence.

Practice spotting bullshitters. They aren’t as difficult to spot as you might think. They are often the ones evangelizing, moralizing, and making dubious connections between unrelated events. When asked for clarifications, bullshitters will often appear dumbfounded or outraged. This is one of the reasons we avoid calling bullshit. It usually isn’t worth the trouble, but that style of thinking is what allows bullshit to proliferate and evolve. The only way out of this sea of bullshit is to normalize calling it out.

Bullshitting is a social exercise. It helps to surround yourself around people who will not mince words, who will tell it like it is, and who have a healthy sense of their own fallibility. That means spending less time with people who claim to know it all, who will say anything to make you feel good, and who will avoid criticism with loosely associated remarks. Spending less time with bullshitters makes it less likely that you will bullshit yourself. In other words, stop giving others social points for their bullshit, and practice an inherent skepticism for confusing statements, PPB, and needless technical jargon - we are all better off without them.

Twitter: @RyanBruno7287

References

De Neys, W. (2014). Conflict detection, dual processes, and logical intuitions: Some clarifications. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 169-187.

Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). On bullshit. In On Bullshit. Princeton University Press.

Ilić, S., & Damnjanović, K. (2021). The effect of source credibility on bullshit receptivity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1193-1205.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Petrocelli, J. V. (2021). The life-changing science of detecting bullshit. St. Martin's Press.

Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision making, 10(6), 549-563.

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Bago, B., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Predictors of attitudes and misperceptions about COVID-19 in Canada, the UK, and the USA. PsyArXiv, 10, 1-25.

Sperber, D. (2010). The guru effect. Review of philosophy and psychology, 1(4), 583-592.

Turpin, M. H., Kara-Yakoubian, M., Walker, A. C., Walker, H. E., Fugelsang, J. A., & Stolz, J. A. (2021). Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence. Evolutionary Psychology, 19(2), 14747049211000317.

Zimmerman, T., Njeri, M., Khader, M., Allen, J., Rosellini, A., & Eaves, T. (2020). A review of truth‐default theory: Implications for information behavior research. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e312.