Bullshit, Lies, and other Nonsense
Doctor Karl - Doctor Karl is Karl Edward Misulis, a physician, scientist, educator, and university professor. He has a BSc from Queen's University Canada, MD from Vanderbilt University, and Ph.D. from SUNY Syracuse. He has authored more than 20 books, some in multiple languages, and has lectured around the world to the public as well as to fellow academics.
Perhaps the term Bullshit is not politically correct for professional writing, but the term captures the topic perfectly. Bullshit, otherwise known as BS, is information that someone conveys that is judged to be untrue from the recipient's point of view. It does not say anything about what the speaker thinks; they might know it is not true, or they might not. On the other hand, Lie is deliberate misinformation which the speaker knows to be incorrect. So, Lie is where the speaker believes the information to be wrong. BS is where the listener believes the information to be inaccurate. More than a subtle difference.
Before we get into the motivations and mechanisms, let's consider why we would encounter these entities in our modern business and personal discourse. We can all imagine or recall some but let's take a few examples.
Manager: "Hey [insert slimy name here]. Did you finish that report on Bullshit for Misulis Group?"
Slimy: "Yes, I did a great job, but then my dog ate my report."
Manager: "So your dog ate your laptop?"
Slimy: "I wrote it on my phone and the dog ate my phone."
Manager: "So bring the dog here, and when it defecates your phone, we will see which is crappy, the dog or the writing."
Misulis Group managers can be tough.
Slimy told a lie, a statement he knew to be untrue. The manager identified Slimy's statement as Bullshit, presuming it was a lie. There is a minimal chance that the dog could have eaten the phone, and an even smaller chance that the report could be on the phone, so we do not need to be 100% certain to judge something as BS. We can speak from likelihood.
One more example with a twist.
Manager: "Can you finish that report up tonight?
Slimy: "Sure thing. I'll have it in your inbox by 800am."
Manager: "Great, we have to have it uploaded by 900am."
Slimy promised he would have it done, but he thought that getting it done by 1000am would be early enough. Lying to get some more time, telling the manager what he wants to hear yet having no intention of finishing the project. The manager told Slimy that it had to be uploaded by 1000am when it did not need to be uploaded until 500pm. So a series of needless lies occurred.
What happened here? Slimy had a history of being late with work, so the manager had developed the habit of giving early deadlines. Slimy had learned this so he had developed the habit of being late for his work. It would be completed and usually done barely in the required timeframe. This workflow was acceptable for this brief example, but should not have occurred; some managers and businesses would not tolerate this and Slimy would be looking for a new job.
Most businesses and organizations do not have the time and patience for this scenario. Most personal relationships should not have to suffer from this type of interaction.
Why don't we have total honesty in our work and personal lives?
Part of the answer is the difference between present and future value. In this context, we are not talking about money; we are talking about the emotional currency of the individuals we are dealing with. Present value is our intended impact on the person we are talking to. Future value is the future impact on the person and their relationship to us.
For the first example, Slimy does not want the manager to get mad at him, so he lies. He is less likely to get fired with this Lie than if he told the truth that he was too lazy to get it done on time. He discounts the future value of the opinion of the manager on him. He assumes the biggest threat is the discourse during the immediate interaction, and he needs to save face if possible.
For the second example, the manager has learned that Slimy will be late, so he gives him a deadline earlier than the real one. Slimy gives the manager a promise he does not intend to keep. Still, he knows by experience that the deadline is artificially early and that being a little late will be okay. This dance works for this duo, but badly. Neither has the trust of the other.
Why do people lie?
We may be induced to tell lies because we want an immediate favorable reaction. We might also tell lies to produce an emotional response from our colleagues. Almost always, it is an attempt to raise their opinion of us. We might want to convey a message that makes us look bold, strong, or knowledgeable. Whether we carry good or bad news, there is respect for an individual who conveys information that our brain considers important.
In our quest to share interesting information with others, we might listen to someone's Lie, believe it, and then tell it to another. At that point, we are not lying since we are not intentionally giving misinformation. Our listener may correctly judge our statement as false, in which case it is BS, though not a lie.
How do we detect BS?
When told something unbelievable, I sometimes say, "My BS detector just sounded." While that is a joke, it is an announcement of disbelief. Is it a version of someone saying, "Really? That is hard to believe." Or a softer version might be, "Are you sure that is true?"
Our minds do have a BS detector of sorts. Our mind assesses incoming information and determines how that information syncs with what we already know or believe. Our memory is relational, meaning that we do not remember everything like a computer, we create and modify memories that are topically related to each other. So our new memories have to be reconciled with our stored memories and opinions. That little voice in the back of our mind which tells us that a statement is untrue is not always correct, but it is often correct. Either the statement is a lie, BS, or a new true item that deserves to be remembered and influence our future judgments.
We can be a bit more scientific about BS detection. One clue is the volume of the surprising statements. Suppose an individual is renowned for coming up with one unbelievable statement after another, and the spheres of the statements are far different, such as medicine and geology. In that case, the statements are quite possibly BS.
When do we challenge?
If we know the statement is BS, we could call them out on it. That often sours the relationship between the parties, and sometimes develops into an argument over the facts which, in the absence of a definitive source, may not get resolved, just produce bad feelings on both sides. An alternative approach depends on how important the statement is. If we are pretty sure the statement is untrue, options include:
Nothing — giving little or no response will tell the speaker that the information is in an area of disinterest or is not believed. But it does not specify which. Also, the reinforcement to the speaker of an emotional response from the listener is absent.
Mild challenge — perhaps something friendlier such as, "That is so surprising, let's look that up to see if it's true."
Moderate challenge — if we are more confident that the statement is not true, we might say something like, "That sounds like nonsense; who told you that? They'd have to convince me." The attack is on a perhaps mythical person as an original source.
Severe challenge — if we are quite certain that the statement is untrue, we might make an in-their-face challenge; "That is total bullshit." However, we do not recommend using that approach. Both sides are angry and the speaker usually does not change their behavior from this. They get defensive, often alienating us from them, and they do not check their facts. We might think this approach will induce them to check their sources, but this rarely occurs.
How do we make mistakes in our truth analytics?
In this discussion, we have assumed that we are the single source of truth, but that is not true. We often make mistakes in our judgments or statements, and we sometimes hold information to be factual when it is not. This is because of a host of cognitive biases which are discussed in other white papers from MG Media & Communications. Just one of these pertinent to this discussion is a form of Implicit Bias called In-Group Bias. We believe what people in a group we identify with say with little or no questioning. This tends to make us believe what we want and disbelieve uncomfortable or dissonant statements. Don't do that. I know what you are thinking, "I'm not like that. I am a perfectly rational analytic person and assess every statement on its merits." No, you're not, and no you don't. None of us are. But we should aspire to be that individual. We do our best to be objective.
What is the approach to handling potential BS?
The approaches to handling lies and BS are key since many beliefs are closely held and have no factual foundation. Whether it be related to election outcomes or vaccine effects, we have good data. Yet, those data are called BS, and the callers are actually the ones producing the BS and often lies. How do we handle potential BS?
First, determine whether it is a statement which needs to be checked. If it is relatively harmless and inconsequential. Let it go, and ignore it.
Second, if it needs to be checked, do our research. This might be asking knowledgeable individuals, consulting reference material, or simply web-searching the topic. But be careful, don't let the bias of even published material mislead you.
Third, if important enough to confront the misinformation, challenge the deliverer.
Many topics are so inconsequential that we can smile and say, "That's surprising," and then move on in the conversation. Again, don't give the emotional response or attention the speaker wants. Not every fact needs to be challenged. If we do, we will have no friends. We challenge when it is mission-critical, either by the material's importance or the speaker's veracity in future encounters.
How to we keep from promulgating lies?
How do we not tell lies? Please don't do it. We are most likely to tell lies when we want to impress or deceive. There are better ways to impress, and there is seldom a need to deceive. Lying and deceiving might produce favorable short-term results but have real and almost certain long-term negative consequences for us.
We are most likely to re-send lies when we do not do our homework. If data is important enough to re-transmit, make sure it is accurate.
When exaggerating, we are sometimes on the border between true and false. Some of us are prone to hyperbole, as I am. In speaking and writing, I sometimes use hyperbole where the intent is to exaggerate to the extent that is not believable yet makes a point. I might say, "Edison had more than a million inventions." The number was a bit less. Both those statements are hyperbole; you know that he did not have a million inventions and that the number was not a bit less but a lot less. But I made the point that he invented much stuff. If I make the statement "Edison had more than a thousand patents", that is probably hyperbole but is almost believable. Hyperbole needs to be obvious to not be judged as a lie. By the way, the answer was 1,093 US patents, so 1000 was right. Isn't that unbelievable?
How do we avoid promulgating BS?
In this context, how do we not relay suspect information? First, we use our BS detector, as already discussed. We should check surprising statements for accuracy before acting on or telling them to others. How much checking is needed? If a person or a publication is generally reliable, such as NPR, then say, "I heard on NPR that…".
Another method, if there is some doubt about the information, is to introduce the doubt in our statement, such as by saying, "I saw this on NPR…". That way, if the information is ultimately found to be untrue, you are not judged to be the source of untruth.
Closing remarks.
We all have tremendous assets and some liabilities. None of us is perfect. But we should strive to be factual as much as possible.
We must avoid being anchored into believing information just because we like the individual or entity projecting the information.
We should be the reliable source, the one who checks important data or gives disclaimers if we are not certain. We never grant complete veracity to any friend, relative, group, political party, or other individual or body of individuals. We need to be free-thinkers, not puppets of groups or media or other individuals.
Thanks for your time and attention. Subscribe to our media and send us constructive comments. Look for more white papers and mini-lectures from MG Media & Communications. If you would like to contribute, contact our team.