A Companion to Bullshit/Rude Awakenings for a Better Nights Rest
Diminishing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 (The Virus itself) and COVID-19 (The name of the disease)[1] is going to take time, a concerted and collaborative effort from both healthcare professionals and laypeople alike, and [2] — above all else — create a framework for their motivations to be stitched together in our shared social-tapestry.
One persistent defection, which invasively replicates and inhibits creation of an environment conducive for this ‘stitching’ to naturally occur — between our varying social spheres — is something tantamount to the problem of a Virus. However, *this* sort of virus is something much more compelling, often willfully if not readily accepted, and theoretically, favorably, much easier to eradicate. Also, Its’ proper name is something that I can assure you are already much more familiar with than any Novel Virus and overall is something that comparatively isn’t novel at all.
Without further preamble — or undeservingly dressing it up — I say unto you this underlying problem is none other than — Bullshit. A dear old friend to some.
Bullshit — subjectively — mutates faster than any organic virus. Bullshit permeates all cultures in variations of folklore [3], anecdotes, allegory, often prescribed as “common sense” rhetoric, and simultaneously used as a tool to disseminate information while reinforcing cognitive biases [4]. Bullshit can be interesting, diffusing, a moldable tool at our disposal in several contexts, and worthy of scholarly conjecture. To wit — the stench of Bullshit may not immediately be detected, and if not used sparingly, or overly relied on, may impair one’s ability to interpret the truth of a matter [5].
Getting to the objective truth of any matter, again subjectively, does not require anything more that time and effort. Unfortunately, being mindful and opting to use time and effort to our advantage can directly contradict the rapid pace at which our pattern-seeking brains prefer to process information quickly [6]. Not to suggest that any one human brain is lazy, at all, but rather more perhaps led and excited by a thinking system that prefers information, or stimuli, which is already more familiar to its’ prior experiences. We see examples of this thinking system displayed on social media nearly any given moment. Right this moment: Take a break from reading this and just scroll around for one minute. . .
. . .Welcome back. Now, think back — How much original content did you see in comparison to, say, that viral video or Meme that you might have already ‘liked’ or ‘shared’ yourself from an earlier scroll-session? Further still — how long does any of that take to fully process/sink-in? Does it create a lasting impact with you, does the surplus of content create a more impermanent experience? Unless you’ve a well-curated, highly personalized, news feed, I would care to wager that most users are engaging with, or regularly sharing, content they did not create. This is not a judgement on them, but rather an observation of the sort of content that drives traffic on social media. It seems as if much of it is designed to coincide with the transience of our emotions. That’s one of the many curious things about Bullshit; its’ knack for emotional manipulation.
Intrinsic to Bullshit is its’ entertainment value and unique ties to an almost Cartesian method of Skepticism — which, in turn, can become its own heuristic (way of learning). Whether you ever dipped your toe into Philosophy or not — in this context just be aware of someone named Rene Descartes and that he is a now long-deceased French person, who proposed a cautious approach for studying knowledge (Epistemology). Otherwise known as a means of discovering the truth of a matter. Or literal matter, for that matter. Descartes thought, Descartes was, and prior to that, Descartes Doubted what he thought and what he was.[*7]
The concept of Doubt is, without a doubt, a useful tool to deploy whenever presented new/unfamiliar information. Doubt is especially useful when making efforts to interpret if particularly sensitive information is both accurate and reliable. Accurate and Reliable — in this context — is any such information which has been well-cited, sourced, and usually recognized as credible by those who are either the sources themselves, close to the source or are regarded as credible experts relating to whatever topic is being presented. Sensitive Information — in this context — is any such information which can be used to manipulate or motivate the emotions and behavior of others, and ultimately affect their, or someone else’s livelihood. While this is not an extensive take — when it comes to Sensitive Information — there are good (pro-social), bad (anti-social), and benign or misleading versions of it.
A rather good-take on Sensitive Information would involve using empirical observations and scientifically-focused language to document those observations. Such as either meeting or not meeting a proposed hypothesis. An even better version of this sort of thing is when a different team of empirical observers can repeat those findings using similar if not identical methods. Repeat findings increase validity. This is a rudimentary description of how research is conducted. A question is asked. An answer (outcome) is presupposed (The Hypothesis). An experiment is detailed with set controls and variables. The experiment is then conducted, and the outcomes/findings are documented objectively and without opinion (so as not to sway the opinion of others or corrupt the experiment.) Even better — the weaknesses of said experiment will also be — sometimes begrudgingly — but freely, loyally, shared so that the next team to form a similar hypothesis might create a better controlled experiment and yield more reliable data [8]. That’s the beautiful thing about the scientific field — it’s a playground of tentative, ever improving data meant to help us understand the world, as we experience it, more practically.
A specific good-take on Sensitive Information would involve taking data extracted from multiple experiments, or trials, and combining them to then develop observations from said Metadata. An example of which is a study titled “Exercise as a treatment for Depression” -that combines analysis of 23 Randomized Controlled Trials with a total of 977 participants. Its conclusions noted that exercise is an effective treatment for depression [9.] It also notes that exercise was only effective in the short term for these participants, and distinguishes what data was significant. This data — Data being the stuff you can count — operates separate from any external motivations, save to determine how effective a non-drug therapy intervention, or combined drug/non-drug therapies can be. No Bullshit here. Highly pro-social and may encourage others to increase their physical activity level to the extent they are able. Home Run.
A bad-take on handling Sensitive Information would be — let us suppose — research supporting conversion therapy, eugenics, or anything regarding White Supremacy. Data yielded from any sort of ‘study’ related to any of those subjects is inherently corrupted by motivations stemming from homophobia and xenophobia. So, I’m not going out of my way to dig deeper on these. Bullshit aplenty. Highly Anti-Social and may encourage others to increase their fears, or worse, act on those fears toward those who do not represent their construct of sameness.
Instead — here’s an article on how greater diversity among research teams creates richer data, “In 2014, two Harvard University researchers examined the ethnic identity of the authors of 1.5 million scientific papers written between 1985 and 2008 using Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science, a comprehensive database of published research. They found that papers written by diverse groups receive more citations and have higher impact factors than papers written by people from the same ethnic group. Moreover, they found that stronger papers were associated with a greater number of author addresses; geographical diversity, and a larger number of references, is a reflection of more intellectual diversity.
From <https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_diversity_makes_us_smarter> “
And a benign or misleading version of handling Sensitive Information would be — almost every one-off study with a small sample size purporting dubious sounding claims. In this case a team of researchers testing the survival rate of jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. This study was actually conducted, and people actually jumped out of a real airplane, without a parachute, and actually survived [10]
The pseudo-trolling element to this one — and the special part of it which is supposed to illicit some Bullshit-Detection was quite deliberate. This experiment was designed to illicit critical thinking from a culture of social media users, usually attracted to ‘clickbait’, hasty reshares, and compelled by the interesting or catchy ‘headline’ leading articles. Ultimately, the goal was to encourage better due-diligence in research preparation, presentation, and ultimately reader discretion [11]
An example of a so- called good-take on handling such sensitive information would be collecting findings from multiple experiments, and then depositing it all into a research paper — all to answer a question. Or, at the least, provide evidence to support that a question is at all answerable, or if further research is needed. Presuming such a research paper is intended for distribution to a broader audience, it will succeed in capably taking somewhat complex information and shaping it into something more easily understood — all while citing its various sources to sustain credibility and maintaining neutrality. What is to be regarded as well written research papers, or even research-sounding papers, will steer away from emotionally charged opinions and statements such as, “what THEY don’t want you to know” and not likely include an unflattering Photoshopped image of that one politician you despise. They may even avoid use of the word’ Bullshit’ if the Author has aspirations of being formally published — or risk contradicting themselves by using opinion-based language. I digress — A research author who is disciplined in removing their own opinion from a paper creates an opportunity for the reader to better form their own — whatever the subject may be. While there are various styles and formats to a research paper, such as APA, MLA, AMA, and more — all of them require citing sources (references) [12]. We are at the mercy of the authors discretion, and the readers ability to discern the credibility of those sources though.
And so — an ostensibly well-written, true to form research paper may be filled with evidence to support a theory, adhere to its style-requirements, but still devoid of value if the references/sources cited are without merit. Further still — an article may appear to check-all the-boxes from a credibility scope — and if read at a cursory glance might encourage risky or dangerous behavior. Skydiving without a parachute anyone?
A social media user, potentially conditioned, to superficially engaging with content — such as clicking “like” or “share” prior to opening and reading the content within may be in for a rude awakening. (Or something in direct opposition to awakening if they happen to skydive without a parachute.) This is especially accurate with such users who are prone to share content without a personal concern to its validity. Though, this is one way many users yield to Bullshit. We all know “fake news” has become synonymous with presumed disinformation, and some audiences have found it used within partisan rhetoric to immediately diminish the credibility of otherwise valid information — such that it may be potentially damaging to the individual charging said information as fake [13]. It can be difficult for untrained eyes to discern what “Fake news” is, if they are sharing Bullshit, because a detection system for “Fake News” is relatively new on the timeline. Although, there is some research to suggest that “Fake News” originates from ‘unpopular sites’ and ‘unverified’ users [14] — those two qualifiers are non-issues to some users. Though it may be fair to say that since Fake News originates on unpopular sites, created by unverified users, it is easily propagated on larger platforms who do not require account verification — such as Facebook and Twitter. Thus, it is arguably the responsibility of those who are self-appointed scrupulous auditors of Fake News to not mis-attribute ‘Fake News’ with something they simply disagree with.
On the subject of Media Literacy — some users can easily discern and avoid perpetrators of misinformation, while others are seduced not necessarily by gullibility but, as mentioned before, cognitive biases being reinforced in conjunction with thinking patterns unaccustomed to delayed gratification. And usually connecting ideas to effectively stir suspicion, drive inquiry, paranoia-fostering and superlative-laden language such as, “The greatest secrets on what the experts won’t tell you about a preventing [topic -e.g. aging, hair loss, “male enlargement”, memory loss, lossless compression, etc.]” or “The best method of absolutely shredding your [topic — e.g. “stubborn belly fat”, “pharmacists recommendations”, “next ski trip”. If you read this and are already aware of the telltale signs of ‘Clickbait’, then consider yourself both privileged and in a position to educate others how to identify it, and more mindfully select the content they share [15]. Conversely, if you have been reading this and have been prompted to reflect upon the reliability of some of the content you’ve created, digested, or perhaps regurgitated then consider yourself the intended audience for this body of text.
You see — Irrespective of your title, wealth, age, gender, orientation, etc. — you are a human being. As a human being you are what cognitive specialists would consider a Social Learner [16]. A basic interpretation of this is that you observe all of your behaviors from various models you interact with or observe, mirror said behaviors within your social in-group and ultimately determine if any set or series of behaviors is beneficial to oneself or to your group. Presumably, antisocial behavior — that which is defective or harmful to the group — is not rewarded due to some form of negative consequence such as commensurate punishment or social ostracization. Also, presumably — demonstrable self-improvement or prosocial behavior are well-regarded and positively reinforced such that this behavior is encouraged. We can note that antisocial behavior is significantly less common in the real-world because the risk of consequence is also very real.
Yet — Within the confines of social media we see superficial versions of reinforcement of the aforementioned ‘likes’, ‘shares’ and occasionally some additional context-specific emotive reactions. These superficial reinforcements help the user to assert that their post was quality content and has served as beneficial to a broad audience. With this baked-in reward system, that arguably reinforces taking little to no risk in content sharing, so too some users have little regard to the consequences of their actions [17].
Once more you are a human-being. If we strip away any sort of obligation to any social contract [18]- from a Golden Rule [19], to a Hammurabi Code [20] or a Bill or Rights [21] — what then have we consented to be governed by but absolute autonomy. And even if we so happen to then emerge into a world of Anarchy — it is still behooves us to be cognizant of how our behavior affects or effects other people. Or, otherwise — thinking again about a sort of social learning concept — be at least aware of what side of the looking glass we are on.
Whether playing a dynamic or static role in the social game — from a broader scope of understanding, at any given moment, we are alternating one of two characters — A.) A Student or B.) A Teacher. Having some self-awareness of our ability to rapidly shift between these two characters, and especially when are intentionally doing so — makes us in turn able to communicate/receive information more effectively.
The responsibility of a student is to listen, observe and question. The responsibility of a teacher is to share, demonstrate and have the courage to acknowledge if a question is something they are qualified to comment on. The burden of responsibility of a teacher is seemingly greater — in the sense that if a student poses a question of which the teacher is unable to answer — the teacher must at least have the integrity to acknowledge their learned limitations (we can only learn so much after all).
As it happens, we are not currently operating within an (uniformly agreed upon) Anarchistic society. And with 2.6 Billion [22] users on Facebook alone — an abundance of students and teachers exist. And within our society, and its agreed upon social contracts, we have so too agreed upon standards of academic credibility. To some extent we are a society where individual merits are based on earning credentials that validate a student’s competency within a specific body of research. This credibility is sometimes established by earning certificates of achievement in some form; each awarded by their own regulatory body of peoples, presumably with their own credentials, presumably also experts in their field, who may then be deemed as just and fair assessors of who may inherit their roles in a respective field to the next generation of movers and shakers. These movers and shakers would be deemed capable of — in the least — detecting and correcting Bullshit at least within their field of expertise.
Perhaps you are beginning to sense where I am going with this.
Further still — the most widely well-regarded and, as of July 31st, 2020 — ongoing socially agreed upon forum for establishing new experts in any field is College/University. Before proceeding further -It is worth noting that I am not equivocating College/University, or any formal Academic pursuits, as correlates to knowledge, credibility of knowledge, professional or financial success. There are multiple avenues to achieve both the former and latter without even so much as a High School Diploma [23]. However, it can generally be agreed that every subsequent generation (The Silent Generation, Boomers, Generation X and Millennial) attended college in higher numbers — part and parcel to each preceding Generation creating a social climate that would all but require higher education of their progeny to be traditionally successful [24] Why is this important? Because it suggests that the broad user base of all social media is comprised of a diverse group, with rich experiences to share, and now, more than ever is largely utilized by more people capable of both teaching and/or listening than ever.
And yet Bullshit persists.
Certainly, we can regard the highest educational authorities as holding advanced degrees, excelling beyond minimum academic prerequisites, empowering them with the authority to publish research, practice medicine, work behind the curtain to improve our quality of life, and otherwise have a credible opinion on ‘the way of things’. And on a lesser, but still beneficial scope, we have the luxury of an abundance of other educated peoples — all interconnected and largely account holders on various social media platforms, potentially serving as available resources for opinions on near countless subjects. And yet for some reason — almost as if in direct juxtaposition to previous generations encouraging higher education or making it necessary for survival — there are significantly concerning numbers of people who are distrusting, of all things, Science [25].
Let us consider the following hyperbolic exercise — Which may of course require *some* application of specious Bullshit.
A person can subscribe to the notion that, say, ‘The Moon Landing’ was faked, and that is fine. There’s an easy way to challenge that assertion and outright debunk that level of skepticism. But, ultimately, a person endorsing a theory — that Hollywood orchestrated one of humanities’ great achievements — is harmless. One party can agree to find some level of entertainment in said theory, and the other can simply dismiss it.
Though some social circles, given ample resources available to validate the objective credibility of the matter, would consider a “Fake Moon Landing Theory” a bit silly. In any case, the social consequence is that neither are physically compromised.
Another person can subscribe to the notion that “9/11” was long premeditated by our own government to self-sabotage, with unknowable end-game machinations, loosely connected with insidious underpinnings, yet all interconnected, somehow, and strung along by shadowy arbiters of fate prone to mustache curling and coin counting. . The glue of such narratives — a smoking-gun or seven — are mightily authoritative claims, which said subscriber is also unable to see as anything but a confirmation to their bias/es. Endorsing a theory that the US Government orchestrated one of humanities’ great tragedies is a bit more puzzling and less benign. In any event — one party can agree that this theory is a bit more difficult to swallow, and the other can, again, dismiss it.
Though some social circles, given ample resources available to validate the objective credibility of the matter, would consider a “9/11 was an inside job” theory quite a bit insensitive. The social consequence is that neither are physically compromised.
Yet another person can subscribe to the notion that Bigfoot, ‘Nessie, and an Oval-Headed Grey Alien named Fleshlight all inhabit the celestial body known as the Pillars of Creation — as each, individual, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient entities — and all seemingly working in both concert and competition with one another, as they manifest the known universe and all its’ sentient beings Mythologies. And another party can believe we — somewhat inexplicably — emerged from a great nothingness, yet finds terrifying beauty in the notion of life emerging from billions of years of gasses and metals dancing with one other, and manifesting more complex moves along their way.
Comparatively — one person endorses the universe has an architect (or three), while the other does not — either perspective is again benign.
Though some social circles, given ample resources available to validate the objective credibility of the matter, would consider any oppositional religious theory a bit insensitive. The social consequence of which is that they eat at different Chick-Fil-A’s on Wednesday evenings. They may each reject either of their theories, consider one another existentially dammed, but, yet again not physically compromise one another.
(Of course, we can acknowledge that some religions indoctrinate by mayhem, violence, and, bizarrely, eradication of potential propaganda recruits. This sort of thing is socially maligned, does compel physically compromising others, and requires intervention/resolution as deemed appropriate by the agreed upon social contract of that region)
The common thread of all these scenarios is that either person/party is not required to — in any formal academic sense — earn their credibility. Most social circles, given ample resources available to validate the objective credibility of any matter, creates an opportunity for any individual to — subjectively — become the expert. Then — if so compelled to compel others — All they need do from there is evangelize the material, to buffer it from attenuation and share, share alike.
No code of ethics is to be considered because none was ever introduced. No licenses to be bound by, because none were ever earned. No submission of content for prior review because no challenge is to be presumed.
Now — let us exit the hyperbolic exercise chamber. (And return to citing our sources.)
The anecdotal point is that there are near countless examples of Bullshit spreading, and the result is relatively without negative consequence. Relative until, and in the exception of, the sheer abundance of collective Bullshit getting in the way of, and favored over, Non-Bullshit information. The sort of stuff that can, should and does affect us.
Which would be most science-based information.
There are elements of scientific dissemination that directly impact or everyday lives; though because research is ongoing, the data may change, and when that occurs so too does the general public (us) understanding of a previously held concept. As it is the scientific communities’ responsibility at large, as responsible teachers with credibility on the line, to refine data relating to public health information. An example of this occurring within our lifetime would be the previously accepted “Food Pyramid” being discarded, for the new and improved “MyPlate” [26]. There are examples, too, of reasonably good science being used for corrupt purposes. No doubt you can recall chatter of vacillating information regarding the dangers of Carbohydrates, only then to be followed by the purported benefits of Carbohydrates. How are we to trust Carbohydrate Credibility in the face of Big Pasta [27]? Because for any one study conducted, which may be financed by directors with questionable motivations, there are substantive, qualifiable and multiple others whose motivations are steeped with integrity. To put it another way — for every Dr. Oz making unverifiable claims about the health benefits of any one product [28] there exists a Dr. Fauci who is less compelled by commercial/capitalistic interests but rather impassioned by reliability and public service [29].
But in our everyday interactions on social media, many of us aren’t usually able to directly converse with medical professionals and are left to our own devices to discuss the information of field experts, or the proverbial this-and-that. And because we have such usually unobstructed access to Sensitive Information — It is our responsibility to honestly and fairly share information with one another — while being mindful if what we are sharing is potentially harmful or presented within an objective context. Inserting buzzy, or emotionally charged opinions in content sharing may add some personality driven entertainment to the article being shared — however it likely won’t do much to persuade or compel an audience on the other side of your particular aisle.
When it comes to minimizing Bullshit we need to maximize our ability to align both aisles.
So, you are hereby Challenged.
This Challenge is coming from an author who holds no advanced degree, has no published research, is absent public authority or any verified social media account. This Challenge is coming from someone with no financial incentive and no expectation of any reward. This Challenge is coming from someone a lot like you; confused about our current state of affairs, perturbed by social divisiveness and very eager to create steps toward more socially amicable operations.
This Challenge?
Stop the Bullshit.
Occasionally, I’ll have an original idea and one of them is this; A lack of challenge invites complacency. Not a single person is a ‘snowflake’ who responds justly to Bullshit when they see it. More so, you are a indeed coward if you see injustice occurring and do nothing to correct it — and are very, very privileged if you are at all insulated from injustice affecting you. Everyone has the right to free speech, but freedom without accountability only perpetuates a climate where bullshit can thrive.
One of the suspected symptoms of COVID-19 is anosmia [30] , or loss of smell [31]. I would suspect in most cases a patient with this symptom would be aware of this diminished sense and be of a mindset to seek treatment. We have a similar ‘anosmia’ when it comes to bullshit detection, in that we must rely on our other senses, intuition, and each other to mitigate the risk of it spreading. As the Bullshit-Virus attenuates over time, we’ll collectively be increasingly better equipped to identify and eradicate it. Until that time comes, like research scientists, the best practice is some form of peer review.
From January 1st, 2020 to April 12th, 2020 — social media use, over other applications, increased by nearly 4%, at a time when ‘the social’ was already consuming 20.8% of user activity [32]. Now with -again — 2.6 Billion (and counting) users on Facebook alone — it begs the question how many of these users could 1.) Be more judicious about the content they may post, and 2.) Be more critical of content that others post? “Is this Bullshit?,” can and should be a note of inquiry often.
This critical method of inquiry is not to be used in a diminutive, pretense, or infantilizing manner. Rather, for it to be an effective method — thus must be expressed earnestly and openly received. Think of this as the emotional equivalent of someone telling you your shoelace is untied. Except in this case, you’re keeping someone from stepping in Bullshit. Something, presumably, both parties should feel pretty okay about.
Why is this such a crusade-worthy campaign (eradicating Bullshit)? Personally, I simply enjoy the notion of uniting us all behind one great cause, for the proverbial greater good. More reasonably is because — with the deepest conviction — I believe that there is a mental health correlate to our capability to make rational decisions , or ‘respond’ versus ‘react’, to people -or content — when we lack the mental health toolkit to cope with information that challenges our worldview. And there is ample evidence to support that when we are depressed we make less “productive” decisions [33]. It would then follow that, if our mental health needs are met, and we are exerting some modicum of coping skills, we will be more perceptive to and better able to navigate around the exact sort of bullshit that was over-stimulating our brains in the first place.
Understandably, while we aren’t currently minimizing Bullshit together, we have been obligated to process a Pandemic together. I’ve heard it said, more than once now, anecdotally, that “this pandemic is showing us who we really are.” At times it’s been said disapprovingly, almost with a sort of myopia that not everyone out there is a mental health professional — or has had a positive experience with one (that may have offered something other than maladaptive coping skills). All of our routines have been disrupted, the forecasted route normalcy is nebulous, and, well, we’re all stressed beyond our bandwidth [34]. Part of our disrupted routine has resulted in isolation for many, due to unemployment, working from home, quarantining, distance learning, or otherwise — and with isolation, especially for those with mental health concerns, create a greater risk for exacerbating symptoms of depression and anxiety [35].
One healthy coping skill, to combat social isolation or loneliness is of course connecting with friends (peers), loved ones, or even (thinking about changes in decision making with increased social media use) anonymous strangers on the internet. The former, if satisfied with those relationships, can be valuable connections that bolster mental health, while the latter may only create series of short-lived rewards — and very probably — a contribution to the ongoing pile of Bullshit.
Effective Bullshit-Mitigation will require some concerted effort; as so few things worth-doing often require (effort). And so — If you have even the slightest inclination that any exciting information you are about to share is infected by Bullshit — steps must be taken to assess.
Roughly less than 1/5 of our population is living with a mental health need [36]. Which means that you likely won’t have to trace too far to ask someone you know, what some of their favorite coping skills are. If you happen to participate in such an exercise you might also find some common coping strategies, otherwise known as a grounding technique. If you are feeling anxious, for example, you mind find it beneficial to deliberately pause and then name (Five) Things you can See, (Four) Things you can touch or feel, (Three) things you can hear, (two) things you can smell, and finally (One) thing you can taste [37].
It feels good to give pause and remind yourself that you can create your own calm. All of the tools are within you, but to put it crudely, may be difficult to access with Bullshit in the way. We know stopping the Bullshit is achievable at an individual level; but, like all therapy, or skills developed/goals achieved, it takes discipline, practice and sometimes years of effort to achieve the greatest results.
Have you yet defined Bullshit?
Merriam-Webster defines it, when used as a noun as, “usually vulgar. :Nonsense especially: foolish insolent talk” and when used as a verb, “ . . .to talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading. [38]” I would describe it, simply, as a lie — or less simply, an influential lie — or, less simply again, a Virus.
“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are frequently impelled — whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others — to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant,” Harry Frankfurt, “On Bullshit”, Page 63.
If this example sounds remotely like any moment where you, perhaps, shared content you didn’t substantiate or comprehend — then there’s some chance you have infected others with Bullshit. I’ve done so too. It can be difficult to acknowledge that we don’t know something [39]. That experience can be quite the catalyst in sparking the desire to contribute anything at all. But would you be contributing sound or noise? Conversely, it can be a strength to acknowledge when we don’t know something. There is a greater authenticity to be gained by not succumbing to Bullshit and plenty of ways to maintain your dignity while acknowledging something is not yet answerable [40]. Avoiding integrity issues can also create an opportunity to meditate in the moment and consider the long-term implications of your contributions [41].
The current Pandemic isn’t the only thing we are “in together”.
We have the agency, autonomy and ability to do pretty well for one another. If we are inclined to teach. If we are inclined to listen. If we are to recognize our shared interest in mutually benefitting from pro-social behavior.
Like Descartes — We have the capacity to be. To think. To Doubt.
And while our Anosmia may inhibit our ability to actually smell Bullshit, Doubt is the only tool we need to prevent it from spreading.
— — — —
References — Most are protected from Bullshit. Despite that — not one thing is 100% bullshit proof.
2. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0995_article
3. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/9552 (Also see Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” for a satirical take on cannibalism)
5. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit (Don’t make me read this out loud)
6. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html (Article on the book by Psychologist Daniel Kahneman called, “Thinking Fast and Slow”)
7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#CogiErgoSum
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (When I completed my undergrad in 2010 — Wikipedia was not considered to be a source students could cite in research papers ^_^)
9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27253219/?from_term=%22Antidepressive+Agents%22%5Bnm%5D&from_filter=pubt.meta-analysis&from_pos=4) (On Exercise and Depression)
10. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 (Jumping out of a plane without a parachute)
11. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/679083038/researchers-show-parachutes-dont-work-but-there-s-a-catch (NPR’s take on the above experiment)
12. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa6_style/apa_overview_and_workshop.html (what we are all taught as the go-to resource for research writing composition)
13. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42724320 (History of Fake news by BBC — but also a blog format so points deducted)
14. https://www.albany.edu/~sp191221/publications/On_the_Origin,_Proliferation_and_Tone_of_Fake_News.pdf
15. https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=620677&p=4328357 (Berkeley Library Guide for Detecting Fake News) The most important reference on this list.
16. http://www.asecib.ase.ro/mps/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
17. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-gen-y-psy/201802/is-social-media-making-us-ruder
18. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
19. https://www.iep.utm.edu/goldrule/
20. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hammurabi
21. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights
22. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/
24. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations/ and just for kicks (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pew-research/)
26. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/crumbling-confusing-food-pyramid-replaced-by-a-plate-201106032767 (It still isn’t perfect)
27. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/pasta-barilla-science-funding
28. https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7346 (Study of Dr Oz and The Doctors television shows medical claims)
29. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director (Almost everything you’d want to know about Dr. Fauci.)
30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164410/ (Loss of Smell in COVID cases)
31. https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/loss-of-smell/basics/definition/sym-20050804 (loss of smell defined)
32. https://www.axios.com/social-media-overuse-spikes-in-coronavirus-pandemic-764b384d-a0ee-4787-bd19-7e7297f6d6ec.html (nothing substantial, but a nice Nielson visual of social media use in 2020.)
33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3132433/ (Study on Depression and decision making. I said “ample” studies. You’re welcome to find more.)
34. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/mental-health-covid-19/art-20482731 (COVID-19 and your mental health)
35. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/05/ce-corner-isolation (Risks of Social isolation)
36. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness.shtml (Mental Health Illness Stats)
37. https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/5-4-3-2-1-countdown-to-make-anxiety-blast-off (Grounding Technique for Anxiety and a helpful “Happy Brain” video)
38. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bullshit
41. https://lifehacker.com/use-the-10-10-10-rule-before-making-a-decision-1830994525
P. S. — May was “Mental Health Month”. For many of us May seems like a decade ago, and every passing day is a new taxation on our basic coping skills. So, One (1) additional challenge — During this month, and every month, take time to check-in with your friends and family. Really. If you are thinking about someone, what is preventing you from calling them? If something ‘feels off’ with a loved one, know that help is available and don’t hesitate to seek it. https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/national-helpline
Speaking with anyone about the real shit, or the Bullshit you’re experiencing can make it all just a bit more manageable.
Peace.
