A fascinating breakdown on its art and application.
The difference between a persuasive bullshitter and an evasive bullshitter is quite profound.
I realized I am an evasive bullshitter, and thought I was more honest, but the phrases and words used even now, post covid hysteria, still shows I engage in some of the art of BS so as not to appear as a stark raving cooker anti-vaxxer as defined by the experts.
"so as not to appear as a stark raving cooker anti-vaxxer as defined by the experts" - yep, that's a weapons-grade psychological operation that has been unleashed upon us all, by people and organisations that have been honing their craft for many decades.
I wonder how the "bullshitters are more easily bullshitted" hypothesis stands up against mass formation as an explanatory mechanism for why I can't think of anyone who would welcome this remarkable article if I sent it to them....
I think the common ground between the "bullshitters are more easily bullshitted" hypothesis and mass formation is probably personality characteristics. My guess would be that people with a combination of high conscientiousness, high openness (intellectual curiosity facet), low to moderate agreeableness, and low neuroticism are more resistant to both bullshit and mass formation. I'd love to do a PhD thesis on this hypothesis, but I couldn't stand the bullshit factor in universities!
Yep. Same with her previous article about Acetaminophen.
Excellent article and facts. It was all true. I was glad someone finally spoke up about, yet another, fraudulent OTC med.
ALL important and yet, people I sent it to yawned. I can add to her facts with facts about Ibuprofen etc. A sick, destructive medication. Yet? People are not interested.
They're not interested because they don't want to take responsibility, and they don't want to change. That's the conclusion I've reached, after nearly 30 years in practice.
I know of one large GP practice that prescribes an 'antiviral package'. I would expect other GP's in the area to do the same. Queensland Health website still refers to both Paxlovid and Molnupiravir (Lagevrio). Start here
Carl Sagan rocks! I once read a book he wrote on the Cosmos, called, unsurprisingly enough, Cosmos, and he was superlative for his mastery of the (quite complex) subject matter and for his clear, engaging, writing style. A fine wordsmith who makes good writing appear effortless when it is anything but.
Ah, the cow pats. One of the reasons there is so much BS about could be the profusion of BS jobs that keep so many in useless emloyment. The entire ‘Diversity, Inclusion, Equity’ industry is knee-deep in the stuff, along with the ‘Fact-Checking’ mountain of poo and any course of academic study with ‘Grievance’ in its title. Sensitivity readers! Advertising. Small armies of public servants running interference for hopeless politicians. Gives real cow manure a bad name.
Sagan was one of the OG 'science communicators' - a job description that has now been irrevocably tarnished by clowns like Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson.
And yes, the bullshit jobs phenomenon!! Just this morning, I was talking to a client who works in a major sandstone university. By her assessment, the vast majority of jobs in her department are bullshit jobs.
I personally really like #5. And I also like #7 - but it probably doesn't need its own number as I think it kind of fits in with the #5 principle.
And of course #9 must be required for anything to be truly valid.
Ah, the problem is that most people can be bullshitted or do the bullshitting because they lack a truly scientific mind. It's not that they don't ask enough questions, or perhaps that they don't ask the right questions; usually they don't ask ANY questions at all!
For anything, I think it has to make SENSE. On many levels. And it shouldn't take decades of studying so it DOES make sense. Almost everything can be simplified as far as I can see, but I think some people like to keep it complicated just to keep people out, from questioning their ideas, from finding faults in it - which means they're probably failing on plenty of those principles! :-D
#5 is a huge one for me. I very intentionally read and listen to ideas and formulations that contradict my own beliefs (which I do my best to hold lightly), so that I can constantly compare the level of evidence for all the competing hypotheses. #7 is a methodology for testing the strength of hypotheses, so you're right in seeing it as a subset of #5. #9 is the most difficult to grasp for most people. Bret Weinstein has emphasised just how unnatural the scientific mindset is to 'natural' human thinking. The natural human impulse is to want to be proven right. Scientists need to be committed to trying to prove themselves wrong. Few scientists seem to me to be really capable of adopting this unnatural approach, let alone non-scientists.
One more method, 'how do you know when a politician is bullshitting, when you see their lips moving'
Pretty reliable heuristic :).
Great read, thanks for the links.
I thought I had a good BS detector, I was wrong, but this article taught me some new concepts.
I think another point should be made, the age old:
"If it too good to be true, then it is too good to be true".
Where did your BS detector let you down?
Your link to "You can't bullshit a bullshitter".
A fascinating breakdown on its art and application.
The difference between a persuasive bullshitter and an evasive bullshitter is quite profound.
I realized I am an evasive bullshitter, and thought I was more honest, but the phrases and words used even now, post covid hysteria, still shows I engage in some of the art of BS so as not to appear as a stark raving cooker anti-vaxxer as defined by the experts.
"so as not to appear as a stark raving cooker anti-vaxxer as defined by the experts" - yep, that's a weapons-grade psychological operation that has been unleashed upon us all, by people and organisations that have been honing their craft for many decades.
I wonder how the "bullshitters are more easily bullshitted" hypothesis stands up against mass formation as an explanatory mechanism for why I can't think of anyone who would welcome this remarkable article if I sent it to them....
I think the common ground between the "bullshitters are more easily bullshitted" hypothesis and mass formation is probably personality characteristics. My guess would be that people with a combination of high conscientiousness, high openness (intellectual curiosity facet), low to moderate agreeableness, and low neuroticism are more resistant to both bullshit and mass formation. I'd love to do a PhD thesis on this hypothesis, but I couldn't stand the bullshit factor in universities!
LOL!!!! That last sentence is gold, Robyn!!
Yep. Same with her previous article about Acetaminophen.
Excellent article and facts. It was all true. I was glad someone finally spoke up about, yet another, fraudulent OTC med.
ALL important and yet, people I sent it to yawned. I can add to her facts with facts about Ibuprofen etc. A sick, destructive medication. Yet? People are not interested.
They're not interested because they don't want to take responsibility, and they don't want to change. That's the conclusion I've reached, after nearly 30 years in practice.
Those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
And apparently, it isn't even that hard to make them believe absurdities.
I know of one large GP practice that prescribes an 'antiviral package'. I would expect other GP's in the area to do the same. Queensland Health website still refers to both Paxlovid and Molnupiravir (Lagevrio). Start here
/www.qld.gov.au/health/conditions/health-alerts/coronavirus-covid-19/health-advice/i-have-covid/antiviral-medicines-for-covid-19
Thanks for that. I notice they're still pushing antipyretics despite clear evidence that suppressing fever worsens the course of illness.
Molnupiravir is being dispensed in parts of Brisbane despite being listed as 'only used in clinical trial' by Aust Covid Taskforce
I would be interested to learn more about this. Who is prescribing this - GPs?
Carl Sagan rocks! I once read a book he wrote on the Cosmos, called, unsurprisingly enough, Cosmos, and he was superlative for his mastery of the (quite complex) subject matter and for his clear, engaging, writing style. A fine wordsmith who makes good writing appear effortless when it is anything but.
Ah, the cow pats. One of the reasons there is so much BS about could be the profusion of BS jobs that keep so many in useless emloyment. The entire ‘Diversity, Inclusion, Equity’ industry is knee-deep in the stuff, along with the ‘Fact-Checking’ mountain of poo and any course of academic study with ‘Grievance’ in its title. Sensitivity readers! Advertising. Small armies of public servants running interference for hopeless politicians. Gives real cow manure a bad name.
Sagan was one of the OG 'science communicators' - a job description that has now been irrevocably tarnished by clowns like Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson.
And yes, the bullshit jobs phenomenon!! Just this morning, I was talking to a client who works in a major sandstone university. By her assessment, the vast majority of jobs in her department are bullshit jobs.
I personally really like #5. And I also like #7 - but it probably doesn't need its own number as I think it kind of fits in with the #5 principle.
And of course #9 must be required for anything to be truly valid.
Ah, the problem is that most people can be bullshitted or do the bullshitting because they lack a truly scientific mind. It's not that they don't ask enough questions, or perhaps that they don't ask the right questions; usually they don't ask ANY questions at all!
For anything, I think it has to make SENSE. On many levels. And it shouldn't take decades of studying so it DOES make sense. Almost everything can be simplified as far as I can see, but I think some people like to keep it complicated just to keep people out, from questioning their ideas, from finding faults in it - which means they're probably failing on plenty of those principles! :-D
#5 is a huge one for me. I very intentionally read and listen to ideas and formulations that contradict my own beliefs (which I do my best to hold lightly), so that I can constantly compare the level of evidence for all the competing hypotheses. #7 is a methodology for testing the strength of hypotheses, so you're right in seeing it as a subset of #5. #9 is the most difficult to grasp for most people. Bret Weinstein has emphasised just how unnatural the scientific mindset is to 'natural' human thinking. The natural human impulse is to want to be proven right. Scientists need to be committed to trying to prove themselves wrong. Few scientists seem to me to be really capable of adopting this unnatural approach, let alone non-scientists.
how bout discernment..!!!
It's a quality in short supply, unfortunately.