Detecting Bullshit
Five Psychological Biases Demagogues Love
Back in the 1800s, before synthetic fertilizers, scientists weren’t able to measure the chemical content of manure; still, experienced farmers of that period knew manure from dairy cows was the best fertilizer for their crops. We now know dairy cow excrement is a perfect balance of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus and that a female hormone present in the feces also stimulates root growth.
Nevertheless, dairy cow manure was not always available a century ago, so when demand exceeded supply, an unscrupulous seller would sometimes substitute what was called a “hot load” of bull manure, which contained higher amounts of nitrogen than dairy cow manure and could burn the roots of seedlings. Fortunately, a savvy farmer could detect the substitute, and when he did he would proclaim, “This is a load of bullshit!” Bullshit eventually came to stand for anything fake.
Now, consider the story itself. Do you believe that dairy cow excrement is a better fertilizer than what comes out of a bull? If it were, could a farmer really detect the difference? Do you believe the story itself is authentic or merely an amusing fable? It sounds plausible. But, does it pass your so-called “smell test?”
How Do We Know When Something is Fake?
In the Internet world, anecdotes are plentiful and fun. We take them at face value and share them throughout the web. But bullshit can also be shared, and it’s not always easy for the average person to detect it, and that is a problem. When we can’t separate fact from fiction when we can’t know the real from the fake, we begin to suspect everything is false — that all politicians lie; all CEOs are greedy; all teenagers do drugs; all cops are on the take or racist; all spouses are unfaithful, etc. Lies make the world feel counterfeit.
Imagine a world where nothing can be trusted, a world like Alice found when she fell down the rabbit hole in Lewis Carroll’s delightfully maddening, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Alice’s world is an entertaining fantasyland on paper, but how would you like to be trapped there? Alice shows us what it’s like to navigate a land where our senses can’t be trusted. By the way, Lewis Carroll didn’t write Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. The author’s real name was Charles Ludwig Dodgson. But don’t trust me, look it up.
Success in life and in business depends on both our own honesty and our ability to detect and expose dishonesty. Suppose we couldn’t count on anyone for the truth. It’s easy to be duped when we are careless or lazy about learning real facts, not alternative ones.
Consider the aggrieved followers that President Donald Trump convinced to protest on the streets of Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. He pleaded with them from an elevated stage to “stop the steal,” and nullify Joe Biden’s election victory. Was Trump telling his acolytes the truth? Was it actually possible for them to overturn the election? Of course, it wasn’t. Trump knew the law, or if he didn’t shame on him for being too lazy to look it up. Was he deluded or just so used to lying to himself, he couldn’t admit he had lost?
Thousands of people marching against the Capitol that day had no power to invalidate the states’ electoral vote. It was a done deal. Yet, his followers believed they could reverse it because their mob boss convinced them it was not only possible but their patriotic duty.
He was so determined not to look like the naked emperor he had to scapegoat his actions by throwing his enabler-in-chief Vice President Pence under the bus, blaming him for not stopping the steal with the stroke of his gavel.
It wasn’t until January 13th, a week too late, that President Trump condemned the violence in a television address to the nation, still insisting he was the Law and Order President. Too bad he didn’t remind the mob about that before they stormed the Capitol.
Demagogues Know How to Appeal to Our Biases
We’ve all made mistakes, perhaps even shaded the facts to get what we want. But the President’s action was not a spontaneous miscue. It was calculated to appeal to our biases and gain support for a lie. We all have biases or prejudices toward something, though we don’t necessarily know what they are or how they influence our choices. Still, we need to be aware of how our biases invite self-deception and make us vulnerable to hucksters and demagogues.
When information fits neatly into one of our long-held opinions, it may feel true even though it’s not. So, a first step to hardening ourselves against falling victims to a lie is to become aware of our own preconceptions and prejudices. That may not be entirely possible, but here are five psychological influences to watch for. These live outside of our awareness but impact our judgment and even help us buy into a lie.
- Confirmation bias” has been kicked around in the popular press to explain why we favor one news source over another. This bias helps us swallow and regurgitate information that supports our preconceived notions. It’s no secret, for instance, that Fox News has one slant while CNN and MSNBC have another. We are attracted to the one that conforms to our so-called worldview. We are drawn to what feels true or what we want to be true without investigating the facts. Confirmation bias made it easy for Trump to convince his supporters that the election had been stolen from them, and moreover, that they could change the outcome. The way to counteract this bias is to look for facts that counter your belief and see if you can argue yourself out of your position.
- “Anchoring bias” is an influence that causes us to be overly reliant on the first piece of information we learn at the expense of later data. If we are first exposed to stories claiming massive election fraud, or that Covid-19 is a hoax, we may doubt later-watched stories that counter what we initially heard or read. Once we form an opinion, it’s difficult to reverse it — Countering this bias requires maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism and being open to new information.
- “Availability heuristic” is a bias that causes us to overestimate the information available to us. In the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, we might have asked friends whether they knew anyone who had been infected. If the answer was no, the availability heuristic helped support our suspicion that the pandemic was nothing to worry about, or worse, a hoax. On the other hand, if we worked in a hospital or knew a medical professional, we were well aware of the Covid-19 danger. Countering the availability bias means verifying the first data we’re exposed to and digging deeper to unearth facts discovered later.
- “Bandwagon effect” is a probability we will adopt a belief that is supported by a lot of other people whether the information, idea, or cause makes sense or not. We may join a tribe or follow a movement simply because it’s endorsed by others, especially prominent others, and the more validation it receives the greater the buy-in. Groupthink can be based on a lie and still motivate us to join because greater numbers bestow greater power. Products or services that receive an abundance of positive reviews on Amazon benefit from the bandwagon effect, as do politicians endorsed by news channels, celebrities, and pundits. Countering this bias requires an assessment of substance over form.
- “Choice-supported bias” tricks us into denying the flaws in our choices. We may vote for politicians who tell us what we want to hear, and if we vote for them we are more likely to overlook their unfulfilled promises or even self-dealing. It was hard for many, for example, to believe President Bill Clinton had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky if they had voted for him. Countering the choice-supported bias means not holding on to choices when they prove to be misguided. In politics, it’s called flip-flopping. In life, it’s called evaluating our decisions.
In the face of so many biases, how can we judge what’s true? So-called “alternative facts,” make us wonder if there is an objective way to separate fact from opinion. Are we destined to be mired in a battle of biased information sources where the loudest or meanest voices win the day? Or, is there a chance of agreeing on what qualifies as bullshit?
How Can We Resolve Disagreements in this Partisan Culture?
In classical philosophy, the dialectic is the exchange of arguments and counterarguments, theses and antitheses, the purpose of which is to reach synthesis (agreement). A hypothesis may lead to a contradiction, but the aim of dialectics is to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion in a genuine mutual search for truth.
The problem we face in a binary, partisan culture is whether anyone truly cares about the truth or just wants to see things their way. Are we willing to expend the effort to examine the masses of information delivered to us 24-hours-a-day or be satisfied with clickbait and move on? It takes discipline to withhold judgment while we gather information, and it’s discouraging when we feel others don’t care enough to do the same.
Unfortunately, modern mass communication obscures the dialectic by presenting one side of an issue exclusively. Following one news network, one program, one magazine, one website, one pundit, or any single information source isn’t going to reveal the truth of any complex issue. Believing only what we want to be true isn’t going to get us where we need to go.
We live in an era when anyone can be a publisher. It’s easy to metastasize hyperbole on the net, or unknowingly promote outright lies without regard for the truth simply because an anecdote is entertaining or scandalous. But lies spread across the net have a way of feeling true in proportion to their volume and longevity.
This is the nature of the so-called “big lie,” such as Donald Trump’s fabrication that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the USA and therefore was unqualified to be President. I know people who still believe this lie. If they wanted to know the truth about his birth origin, they could have read a copy of his birth certificate online. Just Google it. If they believed the document was a fake, they could have applied simple logic and wondered how the Federal Election Commission allowed him to run. They could also question why his many presidential challengers didn’t try to nullify his candidacy.
Unfortunately, the world is sprinkled with conspiracy theorists who believe what they will. Arguing with fringe elements or demanding they check the facts or use simple logic to answer a question won’t resolve anything. Finding truth, however, also requires empathy for the other side of a rational argument.
We can dismiss others who protest a wrong because we don’t feel empathy for their pain. But people protest for reasons that may seem unreasonable until we spend some time in their skins — or at least listen to their grievances. Empathy opens the door to the other side of the argument.
Regardless of whether we can find agreement with others, we can keep from falling prey to our own biases by challenging the assumptions they’re built on. One place to start is by answering these five questions:
1. Do I seek only information that supports what I believe to be true? Or do I look for contrary information?
2. Am I overly reliant on the first information I collect at the exclusion of new information that challenges my initial assumption?
3. Do I trust only information or knowledge that is immediately available to me, or am I skeptical and willing to dig deeper?
4. Do I jump on the bandwagon to support a popular notion without vetting its substance?
5. Am I satisfied with my initial choices regardless of how faulty they prove to be? Or am I able to reexamine the outcomes of my choices?
These questions can increase self-awareness and, like 18th Century farmers, they can help us detect and deny the loads of bullshit that pass our way.
