8 ms·
> The results were clear: while those who scored highly for evasive bullshitting were also better at distinguishing between the genuinely profound and the pseud
by PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> The results were clear: while those who scored highly for evasive bullshitting were also better at distinguishing between the genuinely profound and the pseudo-profound statements, the high persuasive bullshitters were poor at this. “Put another way, high persuasive bullshitters appear to interpret/mistake superficial profoundness as a signal of actual profoundness,” the team explains.
Interesting way of breaking down the categories. In my experience, the persuasive bullshitters might not even understand that they’re bullshitting. That is, they drink their own kool-aid, and therefore the line between their pseudo-profundity and reality starts to disappear.
- mabbo 6y agoBut the study accounted for that by having people self assess how often they would persuasively bullshit and evasively bullshit.
- tjpnz 6y ago>That is, they drink their own kool-aid, and therefore the line between their pseudo-profundity and reality starts to disappear. Largely helped by a society that would deem it too impolite to challenge them on it.
- bilbo0s 6y agoIt's worse than that, because the society drinks their kool-aid too. They don't think it's impolite, they heard the challenges, and decided the BSer's idea was best. Like the buzzword guru that convinces everyone on your team that a javascript server can handle all the requirements of, say, a game streaming server. You can present evidence of the superiority of C++, Java, and Rust until you're blue in the face, but you don't have the gift of gab. If you're a persuasive BSer, you can go far in life.
- tjpnz 6y agoI've been faced with a similar situation and my objections were proven right when we went to production. The most galling aspect of the experience was that it meant absolutely nothing. Nothing was fixed and the people who mattered just continued to drink the kool aid. The individual responsible received accolades while the team lost sleep fire fighting the dumpster fire he started. These people are running rampant in the industry and trying to counter their bullshit does absolutely nothing, more often than not it can inflict real damage on one's own career.
- ta988 6y agoI've seen that many time. The BSer was the most senior of the team. The worst part is when everybody tries to save the boat and everybody forgot why it started to sink in the first place so they ask the same person for advice...
- marmaduke 6y agoThere’s a cost to challenging people. It’s not about politeness (for me) rather that I simply expect net negative for challenging BS so only do it when job or family obliges.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago>>>That is, they drink their own kool-aid, and therefore the line between their pseudo-profundity and reality starts to disappear. >Largely helped by a society that would deem it too impolite to challenge them on it. Actually no. People who drink their own kool-aid generally speak with enormous conviction. Society largely has individuals that cannot access the substance of what is being said, however commitment/conviction ( how ever misplaced) come across very clearly and that is valued. My thoughts are that is people like these who aid evil to thrive. Like the say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- danaliv 6y agoI’ll note that the researchers found this category to have “less insight into their own thoughts, feelings and behaviours,” which is absolutely not the description of a person who is capable of receiving feedback.
- failrate 6y agoI've seen this in action: someone bullshitting in a group until they believe their own bullshit.
- austincheney 6y agoThat is my experience as well. The people who lie so much, so compulsively to the point of a narcissistic personality disorder, drink their own kool-aid. They are manipulating themselves with the stupid as much as everybody else they lie to. Perhaps this is due to a combination of frequent life failures, low confidence, and low ability of critical examination. That low ability of critical examination that permits the self delusion also opens them to undue manipulation from others.
- specialist 6y agoHow you talk changes how you think. The scary part: Most won't remember the change.
- vsareto 6y agoI guess, but that seems weird because then it'd be your brain wanting to change how it thinks itself through speech
- EGreg 6y agoTo all the company founders here... sometimes the difference between bullshit and amazing prescience is just success. I don’t mean lying about the data when communicating, but prioritizing some signals while downplaying, dismissing or overriding many others. Did pg says founders need to be somewhat delusional or they’d give up?
- TeMPOraL 6y agoThe two may be related. I think it's hard to convincingly bullshit yourself - your brain knows what you're doing. But if you successfully bullshit other people, some of them will start to reflect your bullshit back at you - providing external validation for it. At some point your brain may forget that the only reason people around you believe something is because you tricked them into it, and you start truly believing it yourself.
- nitrogen 6y agoThis is used in various belief systems to instill and reinforce deeply held beliefs in the absence of any evidence apart from the manufactured social proof. If one is experiencing doubts, they are told to try telling others that what they doubt is actually true. One example of the phrasing that might be used: "You have to share your testimony to strengthen it." No doubt the technique of manufacturing consent through reflected BS is pervasive elsewhere too, in marketing, politics, etc.
- zozbot234 6y ago> In my experience, the persuasive bullshitters might not even understand that they’re bullshitting. That is, they drink their own kool-aid, and therefore the line between their pseudo-profundity and reality starts to disappear. This is the essence of Dunning–Kruger, in my experience. Very good point.
- mannykannot 6y agoI suspect we are dealing with two populations here: those who think bullshit is a valid mode of argumentation, and those who know it is not, but use it anyway. Those in the latter category know that their bullshit can be called, so they are only likely to use it when they are fairly confident that it will not be recognized as such by their target audience, or when they consider the stakes justify the risk. Politicians and political commentators, trial lawyers and PR flacks come to mind.
- k__ 6y agoThat's the difference between sociopaths and clueless, I think
- mannykannot 6y agoAs a confirmed loser, I appreciate the corollary!
- nandhinianand 6y agoAs someone oscillating between loser and clueless, I appreciate the reference..
- fuzzfactor 6y agoAll Caca del Toro to me.
- playingchanges 6y agoIn my experience all true bullshitters drink their own brew. What came first the self or external delusion?
- jgtrosh 6y ago> In my experience, the persuasive bullshitters might not even understand that they’re bullshitting. But if so, it seems disingenuous to call it “bullshitting”, since that word caries the negative connotation of purposeful deceit, and not of simple wrongbeing. The latter can be considered either neutral or also negative, but strictly less so if you desire truthfulness.
- Bakary 6y agoThe best liars tend to be able to believe their own lies in a live setting