• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

R

Richard7

Senior Member
Messages
772
Location
Australia
I have not read the article but I first read about it on language log, where some of the commenters have a different view.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22605

I loved Harry Frankfurt's excellent essay "On Bullshit." But the article described here, which purports to build on Frankfurt's work, is nothing more than an elaboration of the authors' prejudices. I wondered for a moment if the abstract wasn't a joke -– an amusing demonstration of what it pretends to deplore. Unfortunately, no: the authors are apparently serious and actually carried out the "research" needed to arrive at their perfectly pseudo-scientific results.

Given that they are studying reactions to what they describe as "pseudo-profound bullshit," one would expect the authors to define what they mean by that term with some degree of care and rigor. They don't. Instead, in their brief discussion, they provide something akin to Justice Stewart's famous non-definition definition of obscenity: I know it when I see it.

The problem of course is that when it comes to bullshit, things aren't that simple. How exactly does one distinguish the pseudo-profound from the genuinely profound? The explanation that pseudo-profound bullshit consists of "seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous" sounds good (as bullshit often does) but is logically circular: a statement is empty because it is vacuous.

Their one real-life example of the pseudo-profound is this tweet from Deepak Chopra: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” Easy enough to believe that this statement is indeed pseudo-profound bullshit. But the authors don't even bother to demonstrate as much: the mere fact that Deepak Chopra said it and that its meaning is not immediately apparent suffices for them.

I have no idea what if anything Chopra meant by his tweet, but philosophy is full of highly compressed, gnomic statements whose full meaning can be revealed only by studying the work in which they appear (and sometimes many other works as well). Here's one from J.L. Austin: "Sentences are not as such either true or false" Does that sentence contain a useful insight or is it merely pseudo-profound bullshit? If Austin's meaning isn't immediately apparent to you, the only way to make that judgment is to read further.

...
Click to expand...
 
Woolie

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
alex3619 said:
Let me try something profound. (Oh, no, is profound a new dirty word? Is it like "who you gonna call?".) What if this stuff works because its like poetry. It almost makes sense, so you bring the rest of the sense in you, you make meaning out of almost-meaning? In other words, its like a puzzle, and people just complete the puzzle with what they think it means.
Click to expand...
Yea, nice perspective, @alex3619 and @msf.

They make the point in the article that bullshit is different from nonsense. There's an intentionality to bullshit - to appear to be saying something valuable. You don't have that in nonsense. Drivel is not quite the same either, its more like rubbish. Stupid talk. Bullshit implies some element of pulling the wool over people's eyes that isn't there in drivel.

Hogwash is pretty good, so is flim-flam. But heck, why not just call a spade a spade?
 
jimells

jimells

Senior Member
Messages
2,009
Location
northern Maine
Woolie said:
That's different again, there's a deliberate intended message.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what this paper is talking about. Intent is as important as content, especially in the mass media. For my money, at least 90% of what I see and hear on the TV and radio is pure bullshit/propaganda.

Sometimes the intent is just to sow confusion, as when the Obama Administration constantly shifts the meaning of "boots on the ground". No fancy language or "bullshit" required in this case, just keep changing the way ordinary words are used.

Sometimes the "think tank fellow" just wants to run out the clock to avoid any questions. That's a good time to spew out meaningless phrases. Before the viewer/listener realizes the words are empty, it's Time for a Commercial!

Discussions around economics/finance are maybe the worst - the "analysts" definitely don't want Joe Sixpack to figure out what is really going on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "pseudo-profound bullshit" is just one tactic that is used in the manufacture of consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.