Bull, bollock or bullshit are regarded as expletives. Although we are often, unknowingly, indulging in it, in the present context it is dealt with in a purely ontological context: in the sense that philosophy and cognitive psychology has attempted to explain it as a distinct, interactive phenomenon involving description of reality in specific ways to achieve certain specific goals, by the process of influencing behaviour or conduct of others. Its pursuit versus rational, evidence based discourse and implications for democracy are self-explanatory, since it can distort correct decision-making for common good.
The activity of bullshitting may be carried out by design. More commonly it is pursued unconsciously with only the desired goal being clearly perceptible.
Such objectives are often aimed at exercise of influence or power to achieve clearly defined aims, often unrelated to the social good. The activity is designed to influence and shape individual or social perceptions, thought and conduct in ways that assist in easy achievement of objectives, often without or despite regard to principles of truth, objectivity, democracy and social good.
The bullshitter is more dangerous than a liar: a liar tells untruth; the bullshitter aims to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true — it may be! The boundary between lies and truth are befuddled. A bullshitter pretends to be truthful while showing a hidden disdain for truth. A bullshitter is more dangerous than a liar.
In the English language, bullshitting, although an immodest term, found currency during the two wars in military barracks or messes with reference to outlandish nonsense or wild, unreasonable assertions. They were referred to as ‘crap’ or ‘bull’ explaining the bizarre and unbelievable.
From the military traditions it seeped into the cerebral and semantic frame of post-independent milieu, mostly attributing malfeasance and incompetence to those intended to be kept out of the power equation, which mainly meant civilian leaders. The latter were hamstrung from their own problems of feudal incipience and post independent travails of weak political parties juxtaposed against an inordinately strong military-bureaucratic-feudal state structure.
The unacceptable uncivil word, bullshit, however, became, over time, norm-free, particularly with academic attempts at understanding the psychology and philosophical moorings of why people resort to the act of bullshitting, and what people gain in terms of influence or power by resorting to it. It looked into how this activity is used to make lies seem respectable for specific purposes.
A recent study published in the British Journal, Evolutionary Psychology, finds that those who use bullshitting or forcing others to believe in ideas based upon, say, fake or deliberately created or manipulated facts, rather than evidence or by using intelligence, are often more successful and therefore, considered wiser than others. This is a non-conventional view or theory and merits analysis.
Bullshitting: in philosophy and ‘psychology of cognition’, the term ‘bullshit’ is sometimes used to specifically refer to statements produced without particular concern of truth, to distinguish from a deliberate, manipulative lie intended to subvert the truth, although the two do overlap.
Based upon models comprising more than one thousand respondents in one case and upwards of six hundred in another, researchers found that people who are successful in making up satisfactory explanations for ideas or beliefs that they hold divorced from reality or truth are often more intelligent in terms of getting the common minds to readily accept their ideas and thus achieving their goals, notwithstanding that conduct based upon fabrications tends to divert societies from earnest pursuit of the summum bonum.
Even though these seemingly satisfactory explanations have no relevance to evidence or facts, such is the nature of human psychology, particularly of the commonality, that such purveyors of made-up explanations, are often more successful and considered more intelligent than those who take recourse to reasoned explanation of reality, based upon cognitive experience of facts and drawing rational conclusions therefrom.
The thin line that divides reasoned debate and bullshitting is thus symptomatic of human tendency to avoid use of reasoned explanation or argument since that requires collection of vast amounts of data or factual evidence, its dispassionate examination and drawing of logical conclusions.
Humans tend more towards ready acceptance of ideas or beliefs that respond to or appear to explain their life situations, in terms of trying to find answers for one’s own individual achievements or perceived deprivations or frustrations or explanations for perceived social ills or deficiencies, with which personal dissatisfactions are closely connected.
As Gramsci explained the commonality feels uncomfortable and disoriented when its perception of ‘common sense’ is upset, the common sense reflecting the ‘accepted narrative’. ‘Common sense’ provides mental and emotional comfort.
There exists a preponderant tendency to blindly accept ideas or perceptions of reality without having to make the effort involved in rational, cognitive reflection based upon facts. Readymade solutions and explanations are handy.
But the danger such inclinations, along with existence of perpetrators of such fabrications, pose for true democracy are self-evident since those who possess the knowledge of bending facts to selfish purpose versus the common good always tend to misuse the power of ‘mind or opinion formation’, based upon appeal to instincts rather than reflection or reason.
Such elements are adept at knowledge of psychological techniques, of which the common person has no capacity to comprehend, involved in influencing opinion, for ulterior ends of gaining sway and power, often to the exclusion of democratic processes.
Given the malleability of human brains they promote socially deleterious tendencies of beliefs in one’s own beliefs as ‘infallible’, as ‘true’, as ‘pious’ while regarding alternate ideas as ‘ lies’, ‘sinful’ and ‘harmful’, deserving of elimination, by force if so required. Politics becomes a zero- sum game rather than of consensus.
The dangers to social cohesion and democracy in furtherance or inculcation of such attitudes are self-evident. These risks become greater in an environment of mostly unquestioned acceptance or belief in explanations of social reality that plays upon deep-seated psychological motivations and social deprivations and the urge to find readymade answers to individual and social existence which have no easy solutions, certainly not from frenzied belief in a divisive ‘us’ versus ‘them’ understanding of social reality. Society teeters from cohesion towards polarisation, engulfing all: individual, institutions and society. Rich soil for authoritarianism emerges.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 30th, 2023.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ