We Live in the Age of the Bullshitter

73 点作者 robtherobber超过 2 年前

17 条评论

FWIW, a moment's reflection suggests this is not new.The dawn of the "modern era" in the west is attributed to the rise of Jesus, and, forgive me but what are the various stories of Jesus other than total ridiculous bullshit- reincarnation, "immaculate conception", all the other nonsense- intended to build and maintain the social and financial control structures that existed at the time?I have not studied concrete instances of bullshit in the middle ages but the post-Enlightenment (a bullshit term if ever there was one) was riddled with bullshit. And then the late 1800s in the US featured "snake oil salesman" and "wildcat banking"- these sales pitches are literally indistinguishable from those described in the article.Technology changes the diffusion rate and potentially the effectiveness of the art of the bullshitter (debatable) but the art itself is ancient.

评论 #34199473 未加载

评论 #34200103 未加载

评论 #34199644 未加载

评论 #34201214 未加载

mdp2021超过 2 年前

A recommended read, mostly for awareness.Two notes:-- it is argued that "bullshitting is not lying, as the true/false state remains unknown to the actor because considered irrelevant": well, no, it is still substantially lying, as a disregard for truth. And I am not even checking philology, as I would normally do before discussing meanings: this is not a matter about the meaning of 'true' or 'lie', but substantial ethics.-- it is noted that we do not have enough "bullshit checkers". Now that is not the node: the node remains culture, intelligence, education, for many reasons; one of them is that "truth content" is not trivial and cannot be checked by anyone and cheaply and decisively. Boosting the fundamentals limits the undesirable phenomenon and more; just fighting the undesirable phenomenon will not guarantee "a step forwards" and will not be "a step above".

评论 #34200374 未加载

评论 #34198742 未加载

humanistbot超过 2 年前

Bullshitting is a centuries-old phenomena, nothing unique about our age.Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" was a 1985 essay that got turned into a 2005 best selling book. Which itself restates a thesis by Mark Twain's 1880 "On the Decay of the Art of Lying."

lanamo超过 2 年前

We have three levels of "bullshit":1. The liar: The insidious lie fulfills this criterion, because the liar wants to deceive and is sure of success. 2. The bullshitter: thinks "What I'm saying could be wrong? So what?" 3. The idiot: thinks, however, "What I say could also be wrong? It'll be true!" The idiot just talks like that, or he heard something and passed it on unchecked.In digital media, bullshitters and idiots - as opposed to liars - are both perpetrators and victims.All three (liars, bullshitters, idiots) sometimes accidentally tell the truth. But because it is always easier to miss the truth than to meet it, in most cases they increase bullshit of all kinds and thus act at the expense of the truth.Bullshit only spreads on the internet if many people forward it. If we were all attentive, critical and informed, then this phenomenon would not exist.source(book): [ Philipp Hübl ] "Bullshit-Resistenz", 2018

throwaway14356超过 2 年前

I liked how Gary Stevenson put it. To crudely reproduce: He said that if he walked into a bank he would get a job instantly earning millions based on his accomplishments. An employer would bother to check his background and figure out what he is worth. They have to. Meanwhile news outlets hire economists who are clueless and without accomplishment to speak to the masses as if some authority on the subject.

评论 #34199947 未加载

Nomentatus超过 2 年前

The US etc has passed through a few cycles of media control/moderation vs media anarchy; first with print, then radio, then TV - now youtube which is now trying to be restrictive atm but has a sordid rabbit-hole past.If you grew up when I did, with one middle-of-the-road newspaper in a medium-size city delivered each day and read through; plus highly regulated/filtered TV news (and other content) then right now seems like an age of bullshit. Go back to the age of radio madness (Father Coughlin and many, many more like him) and the yellow press and you realize this isn't peak manure (although yes there's more of everything, meaning more good and bad information.)But the well-moderated times have a price too: lots of stories that didn't fit the official narrative went unreported including the nature of native residential schools, nuclear mishaps, and much more.

protastus超过 2 年前

The author touches on media companies having a perverse set of incentives. This seems to me as a space ripe for disruption, that the dinosaurs have failed to capitalize on. Newspapers are dying a slow death, and that's very dangerous for democracy.For example, r/askscience offers a solution through moderation. Have a panel of known experts who review, comment and possibly even veto all topics of the day. Journalists rarely are experts, so pair them with consultants who have been vetted by the company. Today, the counterpoints to bullshit are at best buried inside the article in the form of a quote, and that's not strong enough to offset a false headline.

mythhouse超过 2 年前

I read the whole article expecting to read how this 'age' is particularly prone to bullshitting vs other ages, but didn't see anything.Or perhaps the author is one such bullshiter himself making a point with clickbait bullshit.

Eumenes超过 2 年前

Reminds me of current HR departments and the thought leadership that surround them.

评论 #34199960 未加载

PaulKeeble超过 2 年前

People clearly prefer to elect a confident liar over a boring competent politician. There is a strong cultural maybe species bias towards confidence nonsense especially when it fits our existing world view.

评论 #34200478 未加载

gravitate超过 2 年前

Refuting bullshit is a pain. If it takes more energy to refute bullshit than the energy used to create it, it gets frustrating, fast. Brandolini's Law[0] applies here.> Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. It states that "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law</a>

评论 #34199981 未加载

jmugan超过 2 年前

It starts out strong, identifying bullshitters on the left and right, but if Obama and Pinker are bullshitters, I'm not sure the label has much meaning. Which is a shame, because I too have been surprised at how little the truth seems to mean to people.

评论 #34199782 未加载

评论 #34199494 未加载

评论 #34199600 未加载

评论 #34199546 未加载

HellDunkel超过 2 年前

The media we consume is a big problem. It defines the rules of the bullshitting game. Take reality tv and trump. Truth or wisedom are simply not in demand here. Come up with something outrageously stupid, mean or dumb and attention will be granted.

sorokod超过 2 年前

The obligatory monorail song<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM</a>

mountaintimefrm超过 2 年前

Since 2011 I've been calling it megalobamboozlementarianism.

TacticalCoder超过 2 年前

This article itelf is complete bullshit. They're obviously totally anti-Musk and paint him next to ponzi-boy and 10-years-in-jail-Holmes.The intellectual dishonesty is high on this one.And then:> But it turned out that Bankman-Fried had essentially gambled away customers’ deposits at his company, leaving the customers in the lurch and destroying Bankman-Fried’s fortune virtually overnight.That is not at all what the indictment is about. It would be nice if the media stopped trying to bullshit us into believing that.Alameda was a scam from way before FTX was even created. The leaflet selling Alameda to investors were already using fake return figures.There are counts of conspiracy to defrauds customers and investors alike.The "effective altruism" guru (the Oxford professor who bought a $15m mansion with stolen money) was actually involved at FTX.It's not clear at all he's clean.Real altruistic people don't need to posture as altruistic people. They don't need to run cults. They don't need to scam people. They don't need to pose as "holier than thou" people.And they certainly don't buy $15m mansions with stolen money.What about, instead of spitting on Elon Musk, we get some actual investigative journalism?For example I've got an interesting subject to investigate: the exact role of SBF's guru who frequented the Bahamas and is running an "Effective Altruism" movement from a $15m mansion bought with stolen money?And, please, journalists... No bullshit in this age.

lizardactivist超过 2 年前

Cultural problem.