Oddbean new post about login | logout How to tell if something is probably bullshit: 1. Sounds really far fetched and complex (opposite of Occam’s razor) 2. Storyteller makes themselves a victim. “They’re after me” and “I’m in danger” 3. Stories of things happening to others around them but not really to them (how convenient) 4. Only hearsay “evidence”. Never anything concrete 5. Profit / fame motive 6. Incoherent “proof” while showing something unrelated to this proof. Attempt to mislead. 7. No formal training or experience or education. “I know I’m right even though I’m not an expert at anything” 8. Attention seeking. 9. Predisposition to easy manipulation or eagerness to believe things without digging into the facts. 10. Ability to tell great stories the lack evidence. 11. Attacking critics instead of rebutting their arguments. Getting emotional when looking at counterpoints data. What am I missing?
If you hear lots of people suddenly reciting the same scripted narrative all of a sudden, it's 100% bullshit.
Maybe could add Red herrings: If the information is intentionally misleading or distracts from the real issue, it could be bullshit. Also,logical fallacies: If the information relies on logical fallacies or faulty reasoning, it could be bullshit.
Pretty much just default to everything is bullshit until proven otherwise. And I rarely care enough to dig for the proof. There’ll be more just as equally unimportant bullshit right around the corner.
🎯
12. Shifting goalposts: Constantly changing the criteria for what counts as "proof" or what would count as disproof. Moving away from the original claim whenever it's challenged. 13. Selective skepticism: Hyper-skeptical about mainstream or verified information but strangely gullible toward unverified claims that support their narrative. 14. Relying on ‘secret’ or ‘insider’ knowledge: If their "truth" relies on privileged information that only they or a select few can access, it’s probably designed to be unverifiable. 15. Overuse of jargon or vague terminology: When they fill explanations with confusing terms or pseudo-scientific language to sound credible, often to create a false sense of authority. 16. Logical fallacies and misinterpretation of data: They might cherry-pick data, use strawman arguments, or misrepresent studies to support their views, especially without clear citations.
The atlatic said something without proof Other news sources say The Atlatic said X happened So it must be true. Discerment my frens Verify, do not trust nostr:nevent1qqs929e8pmqjfc23ndgwgdyklc654kanhs94f8pz2cvd9g9qt0yualcpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qgsph3c2q9yt8uckmgelu0yf7glruudvfluesqn7cuftjpwdynm2gygrqsqqqqqpfld7h3
#1 is how you know the US Federal reserve and more generally most government bureaucrats are full of shit