Pseudo-factual bullshit
“Pseudo-factual bullshit” refers to statements that are designed to appear factual and meaningful but are actually empty of substance or concern for the truth. While it sounds profound or scientific, it is often a jumble of vague buzzwords, irrelevant jargon, or information that is “almost right, but… mangled by word-of-mouth”.
The term is an extension of philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s concept of “bullshit,” which he defined as communication crafted to impress or persuade without any direct concern for the truth. Pseudo-factual bullshit takes this a step further by using the language of facts, data, or science to achieve its deceptive goal.
Core characteristics of pseudo-factual bullshit
- Vague, but impressive language: It relies on sophisticated-sounding terms, often taken from scientific or spiritual contexts, to suggest depth where there is none.
- Indifference to truth: Unlike a lie, which is a deliberate subversion of the truth, the bullshitter is unconcerned with whether their statement is true or false. Their only goal is to produce an effect on the audience.
- Appearance of verisimilitude: It has a veneer of factuality, or “truthiness,” that can make it difficult for people to spot the deception, especially if they are not experts in the subject matter.
- Focus on persuasion, not information: Its purpose is to engage and impress listeners, not to inform them.
Examples of pseudo-factual bullshit
- Pseudo-profound statements: Sentences generated by combining buzzwords that have no real meaning. For example, a random quote like “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty” was rated as profound by some participants in a psychological study, even though it was nonsense.
- Scientific bullshit: The use of unnecessary or irrelevant scientific jargon to lend authority to a claim. For example, describing water by its chemical formula, “dihydrogen monoxide,” in a way that makes it sound dangerous.
- Mangled facts: Information that starts from a factual premise but is distorted over time. One example is the common misconception that orcas are not whales but dolphins, which ignores that dolphins are a type of toothed whale.
Who is most receptive to it?
- Research shows that individuals are not as good at detecting bullshit as they believe. Studies have found that people more receptive to this type of rhetoric often exhibit certain cognitive styles and beliefs:
- Lower cognitive ability: Bullshit receptivity has been linked to lower levels of verbal and fluid intelligence.
- Intuitive thinking style: People who rely more on intuition than reflective, analytical thinking are more likely to fall for pseudo-profound statements.
- Epistemically suspect beliefs: A tendency to believe in things like conspiracy theories, paranormal activity, or alternative medicine correlates with a higher susceptibility to pseudo-factual rhetoric.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[3] https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/why-do-people-fall-for-pseudo-profound-bullshit/
[4] https://www.frontlinebesci.com/p/what-bullshit-tells-us-about-how
[5] wikipedia/en/Pseudoscience
[6] https://ethanmilne.medium.com/the-philosophy-and-science-of-bullshit-42c9eb0ad22a
[8] https://blog.arturnilsson.se/2019/07/08/new-research-on-bullshit-receptivity-5/
[9] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/acp.70029
[10] https://www.psypost.org/the-psychology-of-pseudo-profound-bullshit-insights-from-8-studies/
[11] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.4154
[12] https://www.psypost.org/the-psychology-of-pseudo-profound-bullshit-insights-from-8-studies/
[14] https://aeon.co/ideas/why-bullshit-is-no-laughing-matter
[15] https://www.psypost.org/the-psychology-of-pseudo-profound-bullshit-insights-from-8-studies/
[17] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.3852
[18] https://psychatwork.substack.com/p/why-we-fall-for-conspiracy-theories