One year ago today, I started Everything Is Bullshit. So far, it’s been a lot of fun. Here are some of things I’ve called bullshit on this year: Happiness Suffering Morality Ideology Values Convictions Opinions Authenticity The meaning of life The fear of death
Just happened across your substack after searching in a moment of desperation for guidance on "why everything is bullshit". Oh, to have it all in one place. Thank you.
The name does beg the self-referential question. Have you addressed that somewhere?
I check frequently for any new post from you like some outpost guard waits for news from home. When a new post drops I read it 12 times to build the confidence to drop some heresy on just about any conversation, but it only ever comes out deranged like bird droppings in the punch bowl. I just go back and read you again. Your insights are so thought-provoking and layered I am in awe and truly grateful.
I've enjoyed your content so far (thank you) and do hope to get more.
I read a lot faster than most podcasters speak, so while I'm always interested in the non-verbal voice stuff in a podcast, I find infrequent listening to be my go-to position.
I love your written material, and surely if you podcast/record interviews, I'll read a (hopefully provided) transcript!
Much as I'd like to think that commentators (commenters?) here are particularly open-minded and great (and therefore receive loads of extra status points), I actually think that the ideas in your substack are just more appealing to people than might be assumed. Although you obviously go into lots of subtle areas, the central idea couldn't be clearer and the simplicity is appealing. I also think most people recognise exactly what you're identifying, even if they resist applying the concept to themselves or people they like - that's maybe one of the most challenging, but really interesting bits. I love the idea of a podcast!
Nice post (Ok, I couldn't resist, though it does have the side benefit of being true). As an occasional commenter, I took your complimenting us personally,. Which was very nice.
Your contrast of typical social media' nastiness with the comments here did inspire a request/suggestion: How about a post, Why Social Media is Bullshit? An almost too easy target but also very juicy.
More than once, I've written something that seemed accurate to me, then a few days later read something new from you here that both (1) resonated with and seemed accurate to me (with a well-reasoned argument and evidence/further reading to back it up) and (2) caused me to rethink some of what I'd thought and written. The former is great and all. But this whole online reading/writing endeavor can easily slip into the empty-calories realm of confirmation bias absent the latter.
Perhaps it's the premise that your writing starts from that attracts a certain kind of reader and commenter. One who knows their predicament as a self-deceiving bullshitter among other self-deceiving bullshitters well. There are endless ways in which humans are not equal to one another (and achieving the statistical parity that so many weirdly crave would change nothing), but an obvious one to me is social intelligence. It's long seemed to me that some people have a kind of X-ray vision in this domain, while many others don't. That X-ray vision (and its unequal distribution) can, I think, be uncomfortable and even maddening. So if a space emerges for those who (perhaps) have it to gather and poke sticks at it and themselves and each other together, then gather they will, I suspect, and off running will go the others. This does still defy much of the sickness that spreads across the internet, though. So what do I know?
I read something about forecasters the other day (https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/how-not-to-predict-the-future) that referenced people with a tendency for "active open-mindedness." From the piece: "Instead of operating on autopilot, those who score high in active open-mindedness take into consideration evidence that goes against their beliefs, pay attention to those who disagree with them, and are willing — even eager — to change their minds. It can be particularly difficult for subject matter experts, who may be heavily invested in particular narratives, to fit new evidence into their existing worldview. It’s active open-mindedness that separates these 'superforecasters' from the chaff." From what I've read of the comments, there's a lot of active open-mindedness going on here. We are all, in some way or another, "heavily invested in particular narratives." But we are not all eager to change our minds or allow new evidence to enter our existing worldview. Which I get. It's exhausting. And I assign zero moral superiority or anything like that to it. Alas, some of us can't help it.
One last aside before I head off to my day job to support particular narratives: Re: your "fear of mortality" (or aging) post, I was recently inspired by a Knausgaard novel I'd read to read "The Future of Immortality: Remaking Life and Death in Contemporary Russia" by Anya Bernstein. You may or may not be interested in it, but for me, it has certainly given me much to think about in terms of the fear of aging and death (which I still do not share), the various things driving the human pursuit for immortality (which I still do not possess), and the idea that, in the context of biotech and secularism and modern culture and whatnot, science is in many ways a modern-day religion, one with at least as many flaws and limitations as the religions it has replaced, and one that itself preaches and pursues "resurrection," only now its via stories of various science and tech advancements rather than more traditional religious ones. Anyway, I thought of you and your post while reading the book. Mostly because I do find it fascinating to think, as the various Russian immortalist sects do, that aging is a disease that the living have a moral obligation to "cure," no different than with cancer or whatever. Again, my personal preference is to die naturally and peacefully (and—as I age and my view of life grows increasingly bleak and cynical and nihilistic, despite my resistance to all of the above—within the next 40 years or so), but it's an interesting thought just the same.
Hello David, I'm glad you like my 2 word comments. I think you are so cool that my brain stops me from writing more. Even your comment section is so cool and I'm a fucking idiot. 🫶
I’d recommend not doing consciousness. The topic is overdone and nobody does it properly. Consciousness is a bit like quantum mechanics in that every “expert” has their own pet theory about it. That said, if you decide to go ahead with it, at least interview Lisa Feldman Barrett or Andy Clark because they are interesting LOL
Good stuff. EiB is hands down my favourite Substack, with the most consistently interesting posts, so thank you for doing it. It's great to hear that you have the motivation to continue writing on these topics and others. I voted for the AI one on the poll because I'm curious as to how your thoughts compare with mine about it, but "ALL OF THE ABOVE" is more accurate. Probably won't listen to a podcast, but only because my brain doesn't seem to be able to pay attention to and process podcasts and audio books :(
Great Post! I appreciate your Being, your being a writer of intelligent subject matter, and for your perspective. This up-ending of traditional tropes and thought patterns is critical. In fact, I would say you are saving the world one mind at a time! Congratulations and thanks for pitching in. I am grateful for your thoughtful and thought provoking bullshit. May it all go really well for you! 🌈❤️🔥🌟
David, you first came on my radar on the Modern Wisdom podcast. From there, you became my first Substack subscription. Your perspective and the way you express it is delightful. Thank you for taking the time to enhance so many lives! If you pursue your own podcast, I wish you great success cause I’ll definitely tune in.
I’m going to need you to explore all those topics in 2024.
Don't limit your podcast guests to academics. A little too much bullshit.
Just happened across your substack after searching in a moment of desperation for guidance on "why everything is bullshit". Oh, to have it all in one place. Thank you.
The name does beg the self-referential question. Have you addressed that somewhere?
This is a fascinating blog - keep up the excellent work, David. You are thoughtful, provocative and super interesting.
I check frequently for any new post from you like some outpost guard waits for news from home. When a new post drops I read it 12 times to build the confidence to drop some heresy on just about any conversation, but it only ever comes out deranged like bird droppings in the punch bowl. I just go back and read you again. Your insights are so thought-provoking and layered I am in awe and truly grateful.
I've enjoyed your content so far (thank you) and do hope to get more.
I read a lot faster than most podcasters speak, so while I'm always interested in the non-verbal voice stuff in a podcast, I find infrequent listening to be my go-to position.
I love your written material, and surely if you podcast/record interviews, I'll read a (hopefully provided) transcript!
Much as I'd like to think that commentators (commenters?) here are particularly open-minded and great (and therefore receive loads of extra status points), I actually think that the ideas in your substack are just more appealing to people than might be assumed. Although you obviously go into lots of subtle areas, the central idea couldn't be clearer and the simplicity is appealing. I also think most people recognise exactly what you're identifying, even if they resist applying the concept to themselves or people they like - that's maybe one of the most challenging, but really interesting bits. I love the idea of a podcast!
Happy Anniversary!
Nice post (Ok, I couldn't resist, though it does have the side benefit of being true). As an occasional commenter, I took your complimenting us personally,. Which was very nice.
Your contrast of typical social media' nastiness with the comments here did inspire a request/suggestion: How about a post, Why Social Media is Bullshit? An almost too easy target but also very juicy.
More than once, I've written something that seemed accurate to me, then a few days later read something new from you here that both (1) resonated with and seemed accurate to me (with a well-reasoned argument and evidence/further reading to back it up) and (2) caused me to rethink some of what I'd thought and written. The former is great and all. But this whole online reading/writing endeavor can easily slip into the empty-calories realm of confirmation bias absent the latter.
Perhaps it's the premise that your writing starts from that attracts a certain kind of reader and commenter. One who knows their predicament as a self-deceiving bullshitter among other self-deceiving bullshitters well. There are endless ways in which humans are not equal to one another (and achieving the statistical parity that so many weirdly crave would change nothing), but an obvious one to me is social intelligence. It's long seemed to me that some people have a kind of X-ray vision in this domain, while many others don't. That X-ray vision (and its unequal distribution) can, I think, be uncomfortable and even maddening. So if a space emerges for those who (perhaps) have it to gather and poke sticks at it and themselves and each other together, then gather they will, I suspect, and off running will go the others. This does still defy much of the sickness that spreads across the internet, though. So what do I know?
I read something about forecasters the other day (https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/how-not-to-predict-the-future) that referenced people with a tendency for "active open-mindedness." From the piece: "Instead of operating on autopilot, those who score high in active open-mindedness take into consideration evidence that goes against their beliefs, pay attention to those who disagree with them, and are willing — even eager — to change their minds. It can be particularly difficult for subject matter experts, who may be heavily invested in particular narratives, to fit new evidence into their existing worldview. It’s active open-mindedness that separates these 'superforecasters' from the chaff." From what I've read of the comments, there's a lot of active open-mindedness going on here. We are all, in some way or another, "heavily invested in particular narratives." But we are not all eager to change our minds or allow new evidence to enter our existing worldview. Which I get. It's exhausting. And I assign zero moral superiority or anything like that to it. Alas, some of us can't help it.
One last aside before I head off to my day job to support particular narratives: Re: your "fear of mortality" (or aging) post, I was recently inspired by a Knausgaard novel I'd read to read "The Future of Immortality: Remaking Life and Death in Contemporary Russia" by Anya Bernstein. You may or may not be interested in it, but for me, it has certainly given me much to think about in terms of the fear of aging and death (which I still do not share), the various things driving the human pursuit for immortality (which I still do not possess), and the idea that, in the context of biotech and secularism and modern culture and whatnot, science is in many ways a modern-day religion, one with at least as many flaws and limitations as the religions it has replaced, and one that itself preaches and pursues "resurrection," only now its via stories of various science and tech advancements rather than more traditional religious ones. Anyway, I thought of you and your post while reading the book. Mostly because I do find it fascinating to think, as the various Russian immortalist sects do, that aging is a disease that the living have a moral obligation to "cure," no different than with cancer or whatever. Again, my personal preference is to die naturally and peacefully (and—as I age and my view of life grows increasingly bleak and cynical and nihilistic, despite my resistance to all of the above—within the next 40 years or so), but it's an interesting thought just the same.
Hello David, I'm glad you like my 2 word comments. I think you are so cool that my brain stops me from writing more. Even your comment section is so cool and I'm a fucking idiot. 🫶
I’d recommend not doing consciousness. The topic is overdone and nobody does it properly. Consciousness is a bit like quantum mechanics in that every “expert” has their own pet theory about it. That said, if you decide to go ahead with it, at least interview Lisa Feldman Barrett or Andy Clark because they are interesting LOL
Good stuff. EiB is hands down my favourite Substack, with the most consistently interesting posts, so thank you for doing it. It's great to hear that you have the motivation to continue writing on these topics and others. I voted for the AI one on the poll because I'm curious as to how your thoughts compare with mine about it, but "ALL OF THE ABOVE" is more accurate. Probably won't listen to a podcast, but only because my brain doesn't seem to be able to pay attention to and process podcasts and audio books :(
Great Post! I appreciate your Being, your being a writer of intelligent subject matter, and for your perspective. This up-ending of traditional tropes and thought patterns is critical. In fact, I would say you are saving the world one mind at a time! Congratulations and thanks for pitching in. I am grateful for your thoughtful and thought provoking bullshit. May it all go really well for you! 🌈❤️🔥🌟
David, you first came on my radar on the Modern Wisdom podcast. From there, you became my first Substack subscription. Your perspective and the way you express it is delightful. Thank you for taking the time to enhance so many lives! If you pursue your own podcast, I wish you great success cause I’ll definitely tune in.
Good post!