Bullshit is more of a hindrance to discovering the truth than outright lies.
Little is known about the consequences of Frankfurtian bullshit (i.e., communications with little to no regard for truth, evidence, or established knowledge). Bullshitting behavior may include rhetorical strategies designed to help people appear as if they know what they are talking about in order to impress, persuade, and influence others.
Unlike deliberate disinformation, which requires effort to fabricate false claims, bullshit can be produced quickly and effortlessly, making it particularly well-suited to social media’s rapid pace and emphasis on continuous engagement.
A potential consequence of Frankfurtian bullshit is a deleterious effect on what people perceive to be true. Three experiments test the insidious bullshit hypotheses (i.e., bullshitting is evaluated less negatively, but has more negative consequences, than lying) in light of an illusory truth effect (i.e., repeated, false statements are easier to mentally process, and subsequently perceived as more truthful, than new statements).
Our investigation showed through the application of the illusory truth procedural paradigm that not only is it easier to dismiss lies compared to bullshit, but that bullshit is perceived as more truthful than lies— repeated exposure to bullshit increased its perceived truthfulness compared to repeated exposure to lies.
Being exposed to bullshit will have more deleterious effects on judgment and decision making relative to lies. Given the effect size demonstrated in these studies, if bullshit can be a dramatically more harmful form of communication compared to lying, then we must strive to understand its impact on optimal judgment and decision making.
In a world where truth-indifferent communication is pervasive and often goes unrecognized, these findings carry a sobering message: the communicators least concerned with truth may exert the greatest influence on what the rest of us come to believe.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen