We find Bullshit wherever there are humans. It lies in our nature to not always tell the truth, that’s what we call lying. Somethymes however we care little about the truth, then we bullshit. On where specifically we find it: in close relationships, friendship, politics, science, company meetings…

I am focusing on politics and science here, since they are close to my interests and closely linked. Though some may also be applicable to other fields. I source myself on a project sponsored indirectly by the government of Germany, through the ZDF produced by a group called Maithink X. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc2ZvhBwu90 and https://populismus.online/ are some sources in German, I didn’t find good sources in English, despite them existing, no doubt.

Some of the countless methods used for Bullshitting: Ad-Hominem, False Dilemma, Whataboutism, Motte & Bailey, Silent Majority, Strawman.

Ad-Hominem (on Human)

  • instead of arguing on a objective, factual basis the bullshiter focuses on who is talking. It is not about what is being said, but attacking the believability of the opposing side.
  • One can also mistake a true criticism (for ex: Pointing out a conflict of interest when a cigar salesman tells you that smoking isn’t bad) for an ad-hominem attack.

False Dilemma (false dichotomy)

  • One constructs any issue in a way that there are only two possible choices, preferably one being extremely absurd (–> Strawman). When there are in fact several different possibilities and nuances.

Whataboutism

  • When discussing any issue a different one CAN be found, which is more important. The key is, that we can work on multiple things at a thyme. We also ought to be able to accept minor improvements and compromises as “good enough” or “good for now” instead of demanding the whole package, of whatever issue and solution is being discussed.
  • Example: We see loads of people online complaining endlessly about the failings of the USA. (it would be a bullshit, nonetheless true, argument to say “it could be worse”). In the USA there are so many good things, just the possibility of this much complaint is a good in and of itself. On the other hand are thousands of issues, which individually can be addressed, improved, or not…: Leaden paint, abortion, education, healthcare, bipolar public discourse, involvement in politics of far-away-places, the replication crisis, traffic, an increase of children dying because of SUV’s… It is Whataboutism if one is talking about ones children not being able to count past 14 when 14 years old and someone says: what about my child dying because I backed out of my driveway on my BIG TRUCK and I couldn’t see them. IsN’t ThAt MoRe ImPoRtAnT???
  • Example: A few years I was eating in a restaurant and overheard some old dudes discussing the mass-extinction of birds in central Europe. And their argument against this was literally: “[…]Look at Portugal, they’ve got millions of birds flying around![…]”
  • When discussing such issues it is important to stay on topic, else one will inevitably run off-track and not accomplish much in any direction.
  • An important caveat: it is not whataboutism when discussing the priorities of what things are to be improved.

Motte and Baily

  • When someone first claims an extreme position (out on the bailey) and then retreats (into the motte) and poses a significantly more agreeable position. Thus haveing said the unmentionable and protecting against rightful criticism.

  • Example:

“I think it should be forbidden for women to wear make-up on first dates, as that would be false advertisement”

" * rightful complaints and horrified noises * "

“I-I mean it’s just sad that women have to feel pressured by society to only be able to look good with make-up…”

Silent Majority (Wir sind das Volk! roughly: We are the Folk/People --> excluding others)

  • A political Group/Individual poses an opinion or interest allegedly being held by a majority of a population. Naturally the only ones capable of knowing and representing said interest are this group speaking for the silent majority.
  • This is often paired with an insinuation of some alleged group against said interest. Such as the corrupt elites. --> This allows them to call for a take-back of democracy from the ones corrupting the system. (Which gets even more absurd, when they already hold positions, for which they got elected by said corrupted democratic institutions)
  • The alleged silent majority can be outright dismissed as unscientific. Any Scientifically sound position ought to be able to be proven and thus also disproven. But the “SILENT Majority” is well… silent. And if there is no evidence or at least reasonable suspicion (such as polling data and terrible voting percentages) that there truly is a large, untapped market of disapproval. The easier theory is that there just are a lot of people uninterested in the squabbles of politics. That they are in fact not on the side of the group calling for a silent majority to rise up, but also not on the side of those that are getting attacked by said tactic. They simple are - in marketing terms - not appealing enough.

Strawman:

  • The true classic. Instead of actually talking and discussing with your oponents and potentially, god forbid, come to a productive outcome, one can simply blow their argumentation out of the water and into the realm of ridiculousness. This imagined opposing view is then much more easily disproven, and when not called out one can “win” without anything being gained. (not a “wealth creating game”, not a “zero-sum-game” but instead a “below-zero-sum game.”)

  • Example: In Germany Statistics indicate that an average child is exposed to about 12 ads for so-called “sugar-bombs”, these are explicitly aimed at those children. A strawman for those opposing any lessening to that issue could be: If they want to forbid ME from putting sugar into MY coffee…

  • It is also important that the calling out of false Strawman is also a good bullshitting method.

Please keep these examples in mind, in your future travels of the political and scientific sphere. And please feel free to write your own examples, experiences and methods around this topic down below. These may be implemented into the main post, or future reworkings of it.

It is also incredibly easy to lie with data. However as a scientist we only can rely on data and need to visualize data. Science communication will absolutely be a theme that comes up in this community more often, for now take this article on the Simpsons-Paradox: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/simpsons-paradox-why-you-shouldnt-blindly-believe-data-pei-ying-chua/