"What one "sees" may not always be what is In Plain Sight." - David Apollo

It turns out that many have been "indoctrinated" with different understandings of what "Bullshit" means. For a discussion of some common uses of the term, click here.

For the purposes of this chapter, ConserveLiberty defines "Bullshit" as ... "Representations of things (or interpretations based on those representations) that are offered as true, as factual, when in reality they are not true, they are not factual."

There are two major types of bullshit.

• Type A Bullshit is offered as true when in fact the source offering it knows that it is not true. Type A Bullshit is thus equivalent to intentional deception.
  
  Alternatively, there is Type B Bullshit.
  
  
• Type B Bullshit is offered as true, and in fact the source believes it is true. However, it has either not been rationally validated and/or in fact may not be true. It is often not factual, unless accidentally so. Type B Bullshit is typically the result of its sources not independently and rationally validating the truthfulness of that which they are presenting. They usually do not know enough about the thing they are asserting to actually know whether it is a fact or not. And, they may not actually care whether they know enough about it to validate it themselves. (They may declare that they do, but they never actually prioritize the effort ever to actually rationally validate it.) They simply believe that what they are believing and communicating is a fact, usually because the understanding or misunderstanding of it has come from a source that they trust. Of course, trust in the source is also often given easily, and without validation.

The Bullshit Detection Filter - enables the perception of whether or not sufficient validation of a representation has occurred such that dialogue in search of the most accurate interpretation of what is being discussed can happen.

• This Filter enables a judgement regarding whether or not what is being presented is coming from a source that correlates Credibility, Truth, and Relevance with the validation of the presented as Fact. It assesses, "Is what is presented being interpreted from the perspective of a solid, skeptical, rational, analytical approach?"
• Depending on your own Bullshit Detection Filter settings, and the settings of other of your interacting Filters, ... you may either understand why "fact and relevance" is so important ... or you may be certain that fact and relevance are simply a matter of perspective and that different perspectives are equally valid. Or, somewhere in between.
• This Filter is independant of any default personality trait that may skew towards optimism or pessimism. Either optimists or pessimists may be endowed with either strong or weak Bullshit Detection Filters.
• Though the Filter itself cannot determine if what is being presented is actually factual, those with a strong Bullshit Detection Filter (set near one extreme) are able to recognize that which is ... "suspect, not likely factual, or not validated as factual."
• Many with a more moderate Filter (set a bit more midway,) can perceive the bull as not reflecting reality accurately, and often find humor in the assertions.
• Those with a weakly expressing Bullshit Detection Filter (set near the other extreme) are more likely to accept either intentionally or unintentionally offered Bullshit as true. We consider these people easily persuaded, or, "gullible."

Both Type A and Type B Bullshit are very commonly offered and believed.

One or two simple and direct questions can usually confirm the validation status of what is being presented. Debate and disagreement can always occur between two people seeking to understand the truth of something being discussed. But getting to that truth becomes incredibly more difficult if something being believed and represented as true is actually only a certainty within a biased imagination, or worse, is in fact an intentional deception.

For whatever reason, most do not have a validated understanding of many or most of the things they consider to be true. Related to the explanation of this fact are their Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Filter settings.

It turns out that the ability to perceive when bullshit is being delivered vs. the awareness that something much more credible is being presented has been researched by others and considered a possible cognitively based trait. For example, the following research won the Ig Nobel Peace Prize for 2016:

Our example:

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
(alternate PDF version)

Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Abstract:
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., "A wet person does not fear the rain") or mundane (e.g., "Newborn babies require constant attention") statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

Among the statements evaluated were:

• "Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty."
• "Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation."
• "The heart produces all mental activity."
• "Imagination is inside exponential space time events"
• "The unexplainable undertakes intrinsic experiences."
• "A rock lives for a long time."

Some observations among many who have studied the potential inability to detect bullshit:

• "It is possible that some individuals approach pseudo-profound bullshit with a stronger initial expectation for meaningfulness."
• "All too often, what readers do is judge profound what they have failed to grasp."
• "To be a good reasoner, one must have both the capacity to do whatever computation is necessary (i.e., cognitive ability, intelligence) and the willingness to engage deliberative reasoning processes (i.e., analytic cognitive style; thinking disposition)."
• "Both ontological confusions and religious belief were positively correlated with bullshit receptivity."
• "Whereas reflexive open-mindedness results from an intuitive mindset that is very accepting of information without very much processing, reflective open-mindedness (or active open-mindedness results from a mindset that searches for information as a means to facilitate critical analysis and reflection. Thus, the former should cause one to be more receptive of bullshit whereas the latter, much like analytic cognitive style, should guard against it."

---

Example #2:

Baffled Astronomers Demand to See Hillary Clinton's Birth Certificate

Yogita Patel, 30 September, 2016, The Wall Street Journal

Extracted:

There is one crucial detail Hillary Clinton hasn't divulged to the American people, and it's driving Michael O'Reilly bonkers.

Mr. O'Reilly of Bend, Ore., is an astrologer. He knows Donald Trump was born at 10:54 a.m. in Jamaica Hospital in Queens on June 14, 1946. From that, it's possible to divine that the GOP candidate "has a very strong Mars vibe going on," he says.

The red planet's position in Mr. Trump's natal chart - the precise layout of the heavens at the moment of birth - resonates with American's fed up with Washington, says Mr. O'Reilly. Mars exudes the Roman war god's temperament, and Mr. Trump is "basically channeling that energy."

Mrs. Clinton was born Oct. 26, 1947, at Edgewater Hospital in Chicago, Il., according to the Cook County Clerk. After that, astrologers must play gumshoe to get any closer. There's decent historical evidence for two times at either end of the day. The Clinton campaign declined to answer questions, ensuring the mystery will continue.

"The craft of forecasting is really impossible unless we have a birth time," says Mr. O'Reilly. "But the public demands it."

[intervening text omitted]

At a political event in Concord, N.H., in the 1980's, New Hampshire astrologer Celeste Longacre said she approached Mrs. Clinton, who told her she was born at 8 p.m.

The resulting evening chart, astrologers say, shows strong Gemini-Uranus influences, suggesting an erratic or unpredictable nature. Yet fast-forward the chart to 45 seconds after 8:00 and that could indicate a nurturing disposition.

[intervening text omitted]

The morning time astrologers often use for Mrs. Clinton - 8:02, which a now-deceased seer once claimed to have confirmed, legend has it - shows Mars in the sector that rules her career along with influences from Mercury, indicating a politically ambitious individual with a strong public presence and could also suggest she is scandal-prone. It would make her a double-Scorpio, indicating extra secretiveness.

[intervening text omitted]

Whoever wins Nov. 8, Ms. Ackerman predicts early tumult for the next president, pointing to celestial alignments beginning around inauguration time. "The honeymoon," she says, "is over before it begins."

---

In the examples above, are you able to perceive the relational disconnects between the facts and assertions given with them? Can the impacts resulting from their implied relationships be validated as true? Have they ever been validated ever? What does the empirical validation of the impacts of the implied relationships actually look like?

Most are nearly completely uninterested in sufficiently reviewing validating evidence thoughtfully, rationally, and skeptically. Quite often, they will simply assume that what they are being told is true if it presented to them with a style that they consider implies honesty. If what they are being presented correlates well with other narratives that they have accepted, that's usually enough to ensure their embrace of the new material as "true." And, of course, if the new material conflicts with other narratives they have already accepted, then the new material will be dismissed, and not considered to be relevant or true, despite the rhetoric or style that it is being presented with. For a review of this indoctrination-dependent behavior, review the Embrace of Indoctrinated Preferences Personality Spectrum Filter.

For this reason, those who do not validate what they are being told, or those who do not have a strongly expressing Bullshit Detection Filter, are more likely to accept Bullshit of both types A and B as true.

Many, many people do. Naturally. They are built to do so ... organically.

The rest of us identify the bull, and may even find humor in it.

How does the Bullshit Detection Filter impact our reception and perception of the actual factual, The Real. All That Is is only and always Real.".

Is a strong Bullshit Detection Filter required to enable a more successful embrace of The Truth, and thus fuller experience of Harmony between our lives and the environment around us?

→ The Introduction above was last updated 20 Dec 2016 08:15 PST ←

---

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."

"Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
- John F. Kennedy

The primary pragmatic importance of the Bullshit Detection Filter is that it enables those who have it to more easily get closer to the truth of whatever is being discussed. Its purpose is not to generate affinity for the Truth, that's more likely another Filter. Perhaps we may call that the Truth Affinity Personality Spectrum Filter. Rather, the Bullshit Detection Filter simply facilitates a judgement regarding whether or not what is being presented is coming from a source that regards Credibility and Truth as positively correlated with the validated status of what are being presented as facts, and whether or not the interpretation of those facts was performed from the perspective of a solid, skeptical, rational, analytical approach.

Those who are most interested in the environment they live in unfolding for them within a factually fully truthful perspective are served quite well when they also have a strong Bullshit Detection Filter.

Even though the Filter itself cannot determine if what is being promoted is actually factual, it is quite helpful, synergetic, if those with a strong Bullshit Detection Filter are also able to recognize that which is not factual as ... "not likely factual or not validated as factual."

That can happen, for example, via consideration of what is being stated and looking for other well understood results that would fall out from it naturally. Or comparing what is being stated with other well verified facts that are relevant.

Sometimes, a solid understanding of statistics can be helpful. It is often asserted that a lot of misrepresentation and false conclusions can be arrived at via statistics. In actuality, that is not true. Statistics, understood and properly applied, do not misrepresent anything. However, people misusing statistics, or misunderstanding statistics can often mislead or be misled by taking an overly narrow or corrupted approach that they believe is valid statistically. A simpler example illustrating this point can be made by considering "simple math." Assume one is given a column of numbers, and is asked to add them all up and report the answer. Let's say the result reported is found to be incorrect. Was it "simple math" that was used to justify an alternate result? Or, was "simple math" simply not carried out correctly, leading to the incorrect result?

A healthy skeptical perspective can also be helpful in ferreting out suspect statements that may not represent the truth. Remember, "skepticism" is neither pessimistic nor optimistic, neither negative or positive. Skepticism simply cares about addressing the following question, which seekers of the Truth are always asking, "How do you know that what you are stating is actually correct?"

The skeptic realizes that often there are other factors or possibilities that could result in a false belief that is being described is true. For example, let's say that someone tells you that it is 85 degrees outside. If it feels warm, many might simply believe that the stated temperature is true, or at least "good enough." The skeptic will wonder, "How accurate is the measurement device?" Since there is always a knowable answer to that, the skeptic may also wonder, "What testing of the device was done in order to understand its accuracy?" He might also wonder, "When was the temperature taken, and under what conditions?" in order to better understand its relevance to the time and environment the skeptic finds himself in. Ordinarily, not much validation of the device will have been done. However, if the responder has no answer at all to the skeptic's questions, then one with a strong Bullshit Detection Filter knows without going further that the presenter cares little about the validation of the particular facts being presented. The conversation may continue as simple friendly banter about the weather. But the conversation will also be known to have little practical value in determining what the true temperature of the region being discussed actually is.

CL definition:
The Perfect Mark (the kind every conman looks for) - Someone who desperately wants the con to be true.

The tragedy for some people is that they so badly want to feel they understand a thing that they just decide that they understand it, even when they don't, even when they have not taken a rudimentary step towards verifying that what they believe they understand is actually true. And then, when someone with more robust information or informed interpretation presents a new learning opportunity, they reject it since it conflicts with the paradigm that they have erroneously embraced. Many are hesitant, and may actively avoid accepting the credibility of an alternate interpretation if they believe that doing so may imply that they were initially incorrect. This is so uncomfortable to them that they cannot let that possibility in, they so much must believe that they understand a thing that they now misunderstand.

On the other hand, many are actually comfortable with alternate interpretations, they find them interesting, and often learn something new from them. Rather than having anxieties over the possibility of being shown that they may have been initially incorrect, they actually take joy in finding that the new information they are receiving is enabling them to be more correct than before.

Thus, we have an interplay between two other independently acting instincts or filters. And they are the Truth Affinity Personality Spectrum Filter (oriented to knowing truth) and the Filter Oriented to Not Being Flawed.

→ The Big Picture section above was last updated 04 Nov 2016 13:15 PST ←

---

Back to the Preface       Articles, Essays, and Commentary       Next - Multiple Filters in Play →