Many of us have encountered bullshit artists. They can be entertaining - for a little while at least - but you know that you can’t trust what they say. Perhaps there is such a thing as “harmless bullshit.” But when the bullshitter isn’t deterred when confronted with evidence that their statements are untrue, they move from bullshitting to lying.
“A man is only as good as his word.” There’s a truth to that idea that strikes deep within us. Truthfulness is called for in all great moral and ethical systems that I’m aware of, from the Ten Commandments of the Abrahamic religions to the yamas of yoga. “Be impeccable with your word,” is how Don Miguel Ruiz put in his book, “The Four Agreements.” Who wants to be lied to? Who trusts a person who lies to them? Who would put their fate in the hands of someone they couldn’t trust?
How do you separate truth from bullshit from outright lying? How do you decide if it’s worth your time to listen to someone who is making a statement, asserting that something is true? I suggest thinking of it like a poker game. If you want to be in the game - you want your statements to be believed - you have to ante in. In this case, the ante is credible evidence. If someone wants to claim a statement as fact, ask for the evidence. If they have no credible evidence, then no seat at the table - they’re not in the game. Facts get you in the game, unsubstantiated claims do not.
Assume that any statement made without evidence may be either bullshit or a lie. It’s true that there may be multiple pieces of evidence that aren’t clear or that conflict to some degree. Then you look further - what is the nature of the evidence? Is it from a credible source - preferably one without an agenda? If you follow the trail back do you find solid ground, objectivity?
Claims without evidence may just be bullshit. Claims that contradict the objective evidence are lies. Sometimes people make statements that aren’t true, and we let it slide as bullshit because they weren’t aware of the available evidence. But when someone is in a position of authority, it’s fair to hold them responsible from the very beginning. They’re in a position where it’s their responsibility to know. In this case there’s no free pass to consider a false statement as simple bullshit if there is readily available evidence available to the contrary. It’s not just bullshit, and it’s not an alternate fact. It’s just a lie, plain and simple.
When someone has a track record of being truthful, it is natural to trust that the next thing they tell you is true. But when someone has a track record of consistent bullshit or lies, the presumption shifts. The proper perspective is to assume that the statement is likely false, and insist that they demonstrate its truthfulness by presenting credible evidence.
I can respect someone I disagree with, but I can’t respect someone who has no respect for truth - who doesn’t respect me enough to be honest with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment