Heh. Positionality Statement: I do argue a lot, so perhaps I am simply being defensive and self-serving. Most of your analysis -- which I would say is generally spot on -- would say so.
And nor am I denying that I sometimes argue for just those reasons. Crushing my opponents?Lord there is something cool about that.
But I do have one big bad but. Or butt, depending on how you look at it. You know, arguers are often seen as assholes, so, big butt...
BUT! Arguing is also really useful, not so much for persuading others, maybe a litte, sometimes, but not mostly; it is useful for ME to get a better understanding of whatever issue I am arguing about. What are the critics of those taking an opposing view saying? Do they have ANY good points? Sometimes they do; even when they don't, understanding the criticisms is necessary to get a deeper understanding of why they are wrong or irrelevant. Sometimes, they bring new info to bear on the topic; and even if I conclude the new info they have brought is irrelevant or insufficient to change my view, I have learned something new that, sometimes, is worth knowing. And once in a while, maybe not in the heat of the argumentative moment, but after some time to cool down and let their views percolate, they do change my understanding of something.
Depth of understanding, knowledge, figuring out what is/is not truth, facts, especially in complex situations, or even figuring out ethics and morality (which I realize is also mostly bullshit), but here I am talking about for myself, not for anyone else, is at its best, when social processes, including debate, disagreement, arguing, function well. I do realize that social processes can also be disastrous, and I am not denying that. Exhibit A: The moral panic over racism the last 10 years. Lot beyond that. But my point is that social processes ALSO provide the best hope for figuring out which way is up. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, they are the worst way, except for all the others.
Uncharacteristically Constructively** Yours, Lee
**I do realize that attempts to publicly position oneself as constructive are probably mostly bullshit, but, still, as Winnie the Pooh might say, there you have it.
Yea you're an interesting and unusual case, Lee. I think you're earnestly playing the persuasion game. You seem to care very deeply about what's true and well-supported. But on the other hand, you got a lot fight in you. You seem to enjoy being a pirate and rousing rabbles. I think part of the way you fight is by exposing the hypocrisy of your adversaries--all the ways in which they claim to be playing the persuasion game but are in fact playing the intergroup dominance game. And I think you're correct about the hypocrisy of your adversaries. They really do suck. But I also think there's some hypocrisy on the anti-woke side as well, and plenty of other flaws among those folks, that you're probably relatively uninterested in, right? Which is fine. I want your side to win. I'm just as annoyed by woke academia as you are. And I have my own biases to reckon with. I'm sure my opinion here is just as bullshitty as anyone else's. So I'm not sure what to say, except that... well, everything is bullshit?
I now feel the near uncontrollable urge to argue that you are but that will simply be proving you right. How would you describe yourself? Apart from bearded?
I can understand why you'd think I'm a nihilist. I used to be one, but I eventually reasoned myself out of it. These days, I'm a naturalist moral realist. I think morality and values depend on our evolved emotions, there are things in the world that objectively activate or deactivate those emotions, and that is mostly what we're talking about when we talk values and ethics. As for truth, I think it exists; we are just very very bad at finding it, and we could all use a lot more humility.
I quite like conversations where - as Theodore Zeldin said - both participants go in with the expectation of coming out different in some way. But that is not an argument/debate. And there needs to be good faith and lowish stakes for that to happen.
But I’m also interested in the best arguments of my opponents. They are not idiots.
Great points. Just a side note, social behaviours can and mostly are coming from complex motivational systems. So instead of what is the function of A, the better question is what Are the functions of A and what is their order of importance based on evolutionary psychology. This question allows seemingly contradictory functions to coexist. Then maybe people are arguing for both tribal propaganda, verbal sparring, And persuasion. Itvis just that for most non autistic adjacent people persuasion is the lower priority
Working on platforms for years makes this very clear. I often ask people: “when was the last time an argument OR A NEWS STORY changed your beliefs,” and no one ever has an answer. Deep reading changes us, novels and art change us; then sometimes we change our beliefs ourselves. That’s it. Almost all other “culture” is as you say. But this is a great secret; much (bad shit) would collapse if people understood that none of this is as advertised, none of this informs or develops opinions or beliefs, none!
“… none of this informs or develops opinions or beliefs, none!”
Your claim (argument!) was entirely fine, until you took it to the extreme with the last 10 words.
The claim in those last 10 words is false.
Just because “this” (argument) doesn’t cause people’s beliefs to change immediately (except on rare occasions) does NOT mean that it doesn’t sometimes inform or develop opinions or beliefs over time. You have zero evidence for the veracity of this portion of your claim - and indeed, your claim cannot ever be proven.
This might be my favorite Everything is Bullshit post yet - and that's a high bar to clear!
I think there are two keys to a disagreement being productive, and not a "pseudoargument" as described here. First - there needs to be meta-level agreement. Second, the argument has to be about the issue itself and not other conflicts, such as status and dominance disputes or
personal baggage between the participants.
David mentions that arguments about things like where to go to dinner can be sincere and productive. Let's say I have a trip planned with a friend and we disagree about where to stay. If this is the case we may really want to persuade each other and find a resolution. In this situation we agree on the meta-level as we both share the goal of wanting to enjoy the trip. The disagreement also really is about where to stay, and (hopefully) not about dominance between the two of us or tribes we belong to.
Political arguments can occasionally be this way (maybe .1% of the time) but usually the dispute is about status/dominance between tribes or the individuals involved. They also typically do not have meta-level agreement about principles or processes for understanding the world.
Because of this dynamic in a pseudoargument there's rarely any clarification on the issue itself and the interaction tends to be unpleasant, unproductive, and bad for your relationship with others. It also often leaves you feeling frutrated and/or guilty, and there's really no way to win.
Yes, that’s a great point. Arguments are productive insofar as there are shared goals and both sides benefit from the truth. Arguments are unproductive insofar as there are conflicting goals and the truth is costly for one or both sides (as in politics).
Yes, that’s a great point. Arguments are productive insofar as there are shared goals and both sides benefit from the truth. Arguments are unproductive insofar as there are conflicting goals and the truth is costly for one or both sides (as in politics).
For the sake of argument: one could say there is a tribal incentive to highlight the flaws in the rules and mechanics of tribal warfare, in this case, arguing, status-seeking, and normative tribalism itself, when the opposing tribe dominates public discourse. Similarly, free speech tends to be championed by the suppressed, not by those who already possess it, as the normative rules align with what they wish to express.
Tribalism itself offers an explanation of why arguments are not entirely pointless and why, on a meta-tribal level, our collective knowledge and insights gradually improve in the long run (despite the inevitable fluctuations). The analysis of how things work becomes part of the struggle: it serves as ammunition for the suppressed, a tool to dismantle the dominant tribe's hold on discourse.
The argumentative struggle itself tends to favor the analytic strategy within the suppressed (whether individuals or groups) because they gain relatively higher benefits than the dominators to reveal the mechanics of the situation in order to change it. On a larger scale, this dynamic mirrors what science and technology aim to achieve: humanity's ongoing effort to overcome domination by the laws of physics and gain the upper hand in our "tribal war" with nature. Yet, even this fight is tribalized within human societies. Some tribes prefer submission to nature, believing that humanity would not fare well in the driver’s seat. Others, however, are determined to push forward, unlocking the universe’s secrets and asserting control over natural forces—including the ones that drive our argumentative and tribal behaviors.
You seem to be arguing that arguing against arguing is itself a form of tribalism against dominant groups. But what about arguing against arguing against arguing? I kid. It’s an interesting idea, though, that arguing is a tool of the weak and the oppressed, because dominant groups don’t need it. I’ll have to think more on this.
I liked this "argument" in spite of its seeming pessimism. I think there is a genuine optimistic hope that this will appeal and inform and maybe *gasp* change some readers to pause before their next tribal-instinct-fueled argument.
The use of a particular form of humor can be added to the long list of dark patterns that indicate pseudoarguments. It stands out because sometime people are passionately and intensely arguing a topic and when someone else makes a valid counterpoint, instead of engaging with it with acknowledgement, partial agreement, or a rebuttal, they suddenly try to make patronizing "chill, don't get too serious" or some other jokey remark. This is similar to your deflection and changing the subject points but this specific tactic is common and is especially difficult to recover from, because others, already uncomfortable with the tone of the debate, are relieved when an attempt at humor is made, and add to it, making any effort to resume the discussion seem childish.
I always wondered why politics is almost always a total mess.
But then i began to read In evolutionary psychology. I'm particularly interested in Jonathan haidt's work, and one of his fundemental insights is that humans are more groupish and tribal than most people might think.
Your work makes a lot of sense within that framework.
David, Thanks for the cogent piece. I will use much of it to improve the work we are doing at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. (In the Middle East now intensively.) I am persuaded that you could be more persuasive for healthy argumentation if you displayed something more in ourselves that has been co-evolving with defensive survival of powerful beastliness. Something that is yearning for beauty and delight that does not reduce everything to power-seeking bull shit. Even good argumentation for collective understanding of more truth COULD be reduced to 'merely more effective means of gaining status/power.' That is reductionism ab absurdum that you are not aiming for, I trust. Thus, I want to nudge you to consider changing your title from the click-batey "Everything is Bullshit" to "Beyond the Bullshit" or "Almost Everything Is Bullshit" or "It's All Bullshit--Almost." May you achieve your intention (as I interpret it) to inspire a new massive cross-cultural tribe to openly and courageously seek more truth together as mutual persuaders who come to respect and even love each other without forcing consensus. Randall Paul, President, FRD. FRDiplomacy.org
Thanks, Randall. I’m less optimistic than you about the possibility of creating a world where we seek truth together and come to respect and love each other. I think conflict is an ineradicable part of the human condition, and truth is inherently unpleasant and contrary to the strategic interests of many people. So fighting for truth will always be an uphill battle, especially within ourselves. I agree that your alternative titles are more accurate and defensible descriptions of my views, but they are also less snappy titles, and less likely to attract people’s limited attention. There is a trade-off between snappiness and informativeness, between catchiness and nuance, between interestingness and scholarly rigor. I’ve tried to navigate this trade-off as best I can, and maybe I haven’t gotten the balance right. But I have to include allowances for snappy, tongue-in-cheek titles that aren’t perfectly descriptive of reality. Truth stands no chance if it’s not packaged in an appealing way. That’s part of the uphill battle. Cheers.
Thanks for the helpful reply. I’m a pragmatist aiming for a world of continual contestation in the mode of effective mutual persuasion which ‘works better’ in the engagement of conflicting goals than coercive fighting. Glad you are doing this hard work.
I think the only arguing that makes sense is one that focuses on the epistemic lens of the interlocutors before tackling whatever issue they are arguing about. Without tackling the first principles, most arguing can descend into pseudo arguing pretty quickly as people talk past one another even if they start with all the good intentions. It’s however quite impractical to always have a discussion from first epistemic principles as it takes time. This will then mean that almost all arguing is bullshit.
Great post! What are your thoughts on someone who struggles with friendships due to them having a pretty large amount of ritualistic bullshit? Pleasing them, gossiping, "spending" time/money with them. Can someone be cynical of human intentions and be weary of bullshit and still have friends? Lol. Currently strugglying with that
I feel for you, Pedro. As someone who’s struggled with this myself, there are two things you might try: find friends who share the same interests as you (sports, music, sci fi, science, tabletop games, board games, blogs about bullshit, whatever). Then you can have an easier time skipping the bullshit and talking about (or doing) the thing that interests you. If don’t know anyone who’s into what you’re into, maybe try starting a meetup group about that thing (game night or book club or whatever). Or join another meetup group in your area (I know there are rationality meetup groups in a lot of places—and those people are definitely very autistic-adjacent and bad at social bullshit). The other thing you might try is just unilaterally skipping the bullshit with people you want to be friends with. Change the conversation topic to whatever you wanted to talk about. Invite the person over for whatever non-bullshit thing you’re into. Cut to the chase. I’m often surprised at how often that works. It can be a relief for the other person as well. It might alienate a few people, but you weren’t going to be friends with them anyways so who cares.
I found this article by googling "everything is bullshit so you should just do what you want," and I agree totally. The sentiment you've articulated here is something I'm steeping in lately -- some kind of mini (and not entirely unwelcome) crisis (midlife?). I'm thinking of retiring from arguing altogether and just going back to making arbitrary, subjective art in the studio. I needed to give arguing 'the old college try,' and I did, for a long time. Not sure it leads anywhere meaningful, unless you count increasing clarity about how full of sh!t people are. :)
I remember Keanu Reeves said something like: "I've gotten to an age where I'm done arguing with people. You think 2 + 2 = 5? Fine, you're right. Have fun." I sympathize a lot with that sentiment and think it's probably good advice to generally avoid arguing with people (especially on the internet, and especially regarding politics). But you can occasionally find examples of real, genuine, good faith arguing, and those are precious. If you can find them, they're wonderful and bring all sorts of insights. But if you're having trouble finding them, best to stay away from arguing altogether. Or at least, that's my bullshit advice. :)
I just stumbled on this blog from someone who upvoted it (or whatever is the correct term) on Notes. I was especially drawn to the blog title because I attended a Willie Nelson concert this summer where his son Micah sang a song with the same title that my wife and I have been singing as catharsis to explain the world ever since. I subscribed after reading several older posts. I especially like the concept of cynical Darwinism, which economist and Substack writer Arnold Kling seems to deploy in his blog In My Tribe. I posted this comment because the author appears to read them, for what that is worth.
It's very interesting, I love what you write. It is very addictive when you identify. It is a truth that you can apply to numerous aspects of reality. It happened to psychoanalysts when Freud's theories emerged. It also happened with Marx and communist theory. Darwinism is another one of those ideas with that potential, but I think the originality with which you apply it is brilliant.
I think the danger of all these ideas is to lose sight of the fact that they are just a prism from which to analyze things, capable of bearing much fruit, but also capable of eclipsing other truths. I think the definitive post would be for you to make one entitled. Darwinism is bullshit.
Thanks. You may be right, but Freudianism and Marxism have been debunked by advances in psychology and economics, yet Darwinism remains the centerpiece of modern biology. So I think Darwinism is a much stronger foundation upon which to build one’s worldview. Sure, maybe my worldview will collapse if Darwinism gets debunked, but I doubt that will happen. People have been trying to discredit Darwinism for almost two centuries, and they’ve repeatedly failed, only serving to make the theory stronger and stronger. I think the theory is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Yes, Darwinism is a prism like any other theory, but it’s a very powerful one, and it’s the one that I’ve chosen to focus on.
"But because autistic-adjacent people aren’t socially intelligent enough to recognize that politics is about tribalism and loyalty—and concealing the fact that it’s about tribalism and loyalty—they naively focus on facts and logic, and get frustrated by others’ unwillingness to share their focus. I’m guessing you probably belong in this category." OMG, you diagnosed me!
For 'psuedoargument', how about 'proxy-argument'?
And point 14. 'The person dodges your question', the sooner you can find the right question to ask, the sooner you can find out whether your co-arguee (?) is really arguing in good faith. At least, that's been my experience.
These posts keep getting better. Such provocative and refreshing stuff, very grounding. So grateful, thank you again David. But I'm still struggling with the core hypothesis: Everything Is Bullshit. Okay, ergo, evolutionary psychology is bullshit, amirite? ... and that would make this post yet another status-seeking effort to vaunt your tribal bona fides, yes? And my own effort to serve you up some of your own medicine is just my own weak sauce one-up, one that you will deftly counter with an intellectual left hook disguised as an empathetic and friendly reply...
Super fun! Doing my best here to lean into the formidable Pinsofian worldview. Whether it jaundices or clarifies my view I am uncertain ;-)
Thanks, Donald. The title "everything is bullshit" is intended as tongue-in-cheek. You should interpret it as "many many things are bullshit" or "much more things are bullshit than you might think." I obviously don't think evolutionary psychology is bullshit or I wouldn't have gotten a PhD in it and devoted years of my life to studying it. Yes all that striving probably comes down to a status motive at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean the ideas are wrong. An idea can be status-motivated and correct at the same time. In fact, we often gain status by having correct ideas, and I hope that what status I've gained here is due to the correctness of my ideas. So I'm not a complete nihilist and you shouldn't take my blog as endorsing that view. Cheers and thanks again for the kind words.
Heh. Positionality Statement: I do argue a lot, so perhaps I am simply being defensive and self-serving. Most of your analysis -- which I would say is generally spot on -- would say so.
And nor am I denying that I sometimes argue for just those reasons. Crushing my opponents?Lord there is something cool about that.
But I do have one big bad but. Or butt, depending on how you look at it. You know, arguers are often seen as assholes, so, big butt...
BUT! Arguing is also really useful, not so much for persuading others, maybe a litte, sometimes, but not mostly; it is useful for ME to get a better understanding of whatever issue I am arguing about. What are the critics of those taking an opposing view saying? Do they have ANY good points? Sometimes they do; even when they don't, understanding the criticisms is necessary to get a deeper understanding of why they are wrong or irrelevant. Sometimes, they bring new info to bear on the topic; and even if I conclude the new info they have brought is irrelevant or insufficient to change my view, I have learned something new that, sometimes, is worth knowing. And once in a while, maybe not in the heat of the argumentative moment, but after some time to cool down and let their views percolate, they do change my understanding of something.
Depth of understanding, knowledge, figuring out what is/is not truth, facts, especially in complex situations, or even figuring out ethics and morality (which I realize is also mostly bullshit), but here I am talking about for myself, not for anyone else, is at its best, when social processes, including debate, disagreement, arguing, function well. I do realize that social processes can also be disastrous, and I am not denying that. Exhibit A: The moral panic over racism the last 10 years. Lot beyond that. But my point is that social processes ALSO provide the best hope for figuring out which way is up. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, they are the worst way, except for all the others.
Uncharacteristically Constructively** Yours, Lee
**I do realize that attempts to publicly position oneself as constructive are probably mostly bullshit, but, still, as Winnie the Pooh might say, there you have it.
Yea you're an interesting and unusual case, Lee. I think you're earnestly playing the persuasion game. You seem to care very deeply about what's true and well-supported. But on the other hand, you got a lot fight in you. You seem to enjoy being a pirate and rousing rabbles. I think part of the way you fight is by exposing the hypocrisy of your adversaries--all the ways in which they claim to be playing the persuasion game but are in fact playing the intergroup dominance game. And I think you're correct about the hypocrisy of your adversaries. They really do suck. But I also think there's some hypocrisy on the anti-woke side as well, and plenty of other flaws among those folks, that you're probably relatively uninterested in, right? Which is fine. I want your side to win. I'm just as annoyed by woke academia as you are. And I have my own biases to reckon with. I'm sure my opinion here is just as bullshitty as anyone else's. So I'm not sure what to say, except that... well, everything is bullshit?
David - I regret to inform you that Nihilism is also Bullshit.
FYI, I'm not a nihilist.
I now feel the near uncontrollable urge to argue that you are but that will simply be proving you right. How would you describe yourself? Apart from bearded?
I can understand why you'd think I'm a nihilist. I used to be one, but I eventually reasoned myself out of it. These days, I'm a naturalist moral realist. I think morality and values depend on our evolved emotions, there are things in the world that objectively activate or deactivate those emotions, and that is mostly what we're talking about when we talk values and ethics. As for truth, I think it exists; we are just very very bad at finding it, and we could all use a lot more humility.
I quite like conversations where - as Theodore Zeldin said - both participants go in with the expectation of coming out different in some way. But that is not an argument/debate. And there needs to be good faith and lowish stakes for that to happen.
But I’m also interested in the best arguments of my opponents. They are not idiots.
Correction - they are not *all* idiots…
Great points. Just a side note, social behaviours can and mostly are coming from complex motivational systems. So instead of what is the function of A, the better question is what Are the functions of A and what is their order of importance based on evolutionary psychology. This question allows seemingly contradictory functions to coexist. Then maybe people are arguing for both tribal propaganda, verbal sparring, And persuasion. Itvis just that for most non autistic adjacent people persuasion is the lower priority
Yes, nice caveat.
Working on platforms for years makes this very clear. I often ask people: “when was the last time an argument OR A NEWS STORY changed your beliefs,” and no one ever has an answer. Deep reading changes us, novels and art change us; then sometimes we change our beliefs ourselves. That’s it. Almost all other “culture” is as you say. But this is a great secret; much (bad shit) would collapse if people understood that none of this is as advertised, none of this informs or develops opinions or beliefs, none!
“… none of this informs or develops opinions or beliefs, none!”
Your claim (argument!) was entirely fine, until you took it to the extreme with the last 10 words.
The claim in those last 10 words is false.
Just because “this” (argument) doesn’t cause people’s beliefs to change immediately (except on rare occasions) does NOT mean that it doesn’t sometimes inform or develop opinions or beliefs over time. You have zero evidence for the veracity of this portion of your claim - and indeed, your claim cannot ever be proven.
Fair point! I overstate things habitually, a terrible habit. I do think the frequency is extremely low, but it's not zero, you're right.
This might be my favorite Everything is Bullshit post yet - and that's a high bar to clear!
I think there are two keys to a disagreement being productive, and not a "pseudoargument" as described here. First - there needs to be meta-level agreement. Second, the argument has to be about the issue itself and not other conflicts, such as status and dominance disputes or
personal baggage between the participants.
David mentions that arguments about things like where to go to dinner can be sincere and productive. Let's say I have a trip planned with a friend and we disagree about where to stay. If this is the case we may really want to persuade each other and find a resolution. In this situation we agree on the meta-level as we both share the goal of wanting to enjoy the trip. The disagreement also really is about where to stay, and (hopefully) not about dominance between the two of us or tribes we belong to.
Political arguments can occasionally be this way (maybe .1% of the time) but usually the dispute is about status/dominance between tribes or the individuals involved. They also typically do not have meta-level agreement about principles or processes for understanding the world.
Because of this dynamic in a pseudoargument there's rarely any clarification on the issue itself and the interaction tends to be unpleasant, unproductive, and bad for your relationship with others. It also often leaves you feeling frutrated and/or guilty, and there's really no way to win.
Yes, that’s a great point. Arguments are productive insofar as there are shared goals and both sides benefit from the truth. Arguments are unproductive insofar as there are conflicting goals and the truth is costly for one or both sides (as in politics).
Yes, that’s a great point. Arguments are productive insofar as there are shared goals and both sides benefit from the truth. Arguments are unproductive insofar as there are conflicting goals and the truth is costly for one or both sides (as in politics).
For the sake of argument: one could say there is a tribal incentive to highlight the flaws in the rules and mechanics of tribal warfare, in this case, arguing, status-seeking, and normative tribalism itself, when the opposing tribe dominates public discourse. Similarly, free speech tends to be championed by the suppressed, not by those who already possess it, as the normative rules align with what they wish to express.
Tribalism itself offers an explanation of why arguments are not entirely pointless and why, on a meta-tribal level, our collective knowledge and insights gradually improve in the long run (despite the inevitable fluctuations). The analysis of how things work becomes part of the struggle: it serves as ammunition for the suppressed, a tool to dismantle the dominant tribe's hold on discourse.
The argumentative struggle itself tends to favor the analytic strategy within the suppressed (whether individuals or groups) because they gain relatively higher benefits than the dominators to reveal the mechanics of the situation in order to change it. On a larger scale, this dynamic mirrors what science and technology aim to achieve: humanity's ongoing effort to overcome domination by the laws of physics and gain the upper hand in our "tribal war" with nature. Yet, even this fight is tribalized within human societies. Some tribes prefer submission to nature, believing that humanity would not fare well in the driver’s seat. Others, however, are determined to push forward, unlocking the universe’s secrets and asserting control over natural forces—including the ones that drive our argumentative and tribal behaviors.
You seem to be arguing that arguing against arguing is itself a form of tribalism against dominant groups. But what about arguing against arguing against arguing? I kid. It’s an interesting idea, though, that arguing is a tool of the weak and the oppressed, because dominant groups don’t need it. I’ll have to think more on this.
I liked this "argument" in spite of its seeming pessimism. I think there is a genuine optimistic hope that this will appeal and inform and maybe *gasp* change some readers to pause before their next tribal-instinct-fueled argument.
The use of a particular form of humor can be added to the long list of dark patterns that indicate pseudoarguments. It stands out because sometime people are passionately and intensely arguing a topic and when someone else makes a valid counterpoint, instead of engaging with it with acknowledgement, partial agreement, or a rebuttal, they suddenly try to make patronizing "chill, don't get too serious" or some other jokey remark. This is similar to your deflection and changing the subject points but this specific tactic is common and is especially difficult to recover from, because others, already uncomfortable with the tone of the debate, are relieved when an attempt at humor is made, and add to it, making any effort to resume the discussion seem childish.
Must admit that when I argue on the internet it's partly to test viability of my products in the Marketplace of Rationalizations.
https://www.optimallyirrational.com/p/the-marketplace-of-rationalisations
Great read.
I hugely admire your work.
I always wondered why politics is almost always a total mess.
But then i began to read In evolutionary psychology. I'm particularly interested in Jonathan haidt's work, and one of his fundemental insights is that humans are more groupish and tribal than most people might think.
Your work makes a lot of sense within that framework.
David, Thanks for the cogent piece. I will use much of it to improve the work we are doing at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. (In the Middle East now intensively.) I am persuaded that you could be more persuasive for healthy argumentation if you displayed something more in ourselves that has been co-evolving with defensive survival of powerful beastliness. Something that is yearning for beauty and delight that does not reduce everything to power-seeking bull shit. Even good argumentation for collective understanding of more truth COULD be reduced to 'merely more effective means of gaining status/power.' That is reductionism ab absurdum that you are not aiming for, I trust. Thus, I want to nudge you to consider changing your title from the click-batey "Everything is Bullshit" to "Beyond the Bullshit" or "Almost Everything Is Bullshit" or "It's All Bullshit--Almost." May you achieve your intention (as I interpret it) to inspire a new massive cross-cultural tribe to openly and courageously seek more truth together as mutual persuaders who come to respect and even love each other without forcing consensus. Randall Paul, President, FRD. FRDiplomacy.org
Thanks, Randall. I’m less optimistic than you about the possibility of creating a world where we seek truth together and come to respect and love each other. I think conflict is an ineradicable part of the human condition, and truth is inherently unpleasant and contrary to the strategic interests of many people. So fighting for truth will always be an uphill battle, especially within ourselves. I agree that your alternative titles are more accurate and defensible descriptions of my views, but they are also less snappy titles, and less likely to attract people’s limited attention. There is a trade-off between snappiness and informativeness, between catchiness and nuance, between interestingness and scholarly rigor. I’ve tried to navigate this trade-off as best I can, and maybe I haven’t gotten the balance right. But I have to include allowances for snappy, tongue-in-cheek titles that aren’t perfectly descriptive of reality. Truth stands no chance if it’s not packaged in an appealing way. That’s part of the uphill battle. Cheers.
Thanks for the helpful reply. I’m a pragmatist aiming for a world of continual contestation in the mode of effective mutual persuasion which ‘works better’ in the engagement of conflicting goals than coercive fighting. Glad you are doing this hard work.
I think the only arguing that makes sense is one that focuses on the epistemic lens of the interlocutors before tackling whatever issue they are arguing about. Without tackling the first principles, most arguing can descend into pseudo arguing pretty quickly as people talk past one another even if they start with all the good intentions. It’s however quite impractical to always have a discussion from first epistemic principles as it takes time. This will then mean that almost all arguing is bullshit.
Great post! What are your thoughts on someone who struggles with friendships due to them having a pretty large amount of ritualistic bullshit? Pleasing them, gossiping, "spending" time/money with them. Can someone be cynical of human intentions and be weary of bullshit and still have friends? Lol. Currently strugglying with that
I feel for you, Pedro. As someone who’s struggled with this myself, there are two things you might try: find friends who share the same interests as you (sports, music, sci fi, science, tabletop games, board games, blogs about bullshit, whatever). Then you can have an easier time skipping the bullshit and talking about (or doing) the thing that interests you. If don’t know anyone who’s into what you’re into, maybe try starting a meetup group about that thing (game night or book club or whatever). Or join another meetup group in your area (I know there are rationality meetup groups in a lot of places—and those people are definitely very autistic-adjacent and bad at social bullshit). The other thing you might try is just unilaterally skipping the bullshit with people you want to be friends with. Change the conversation topic to whatever you wanted to talk about. Invite the person over for whatever non-bullshit thing you’re into. Cut to the chase. I’m often surprised at how often that works. It can be a relief for the other person as well. It might alienate a few people, but you weren’t going to be friends with them anyways so who cares.
I found this article by googling "everything is bullshit so you should just do what you want," and I agree totally. The sentiment you've articulated here is something I'm steeping in lately -- some kind of mini (and not entirely unwelcome) crisis (midlife?). I'm thinking of retiring from arguing altogether and just going back to making arbitrary, subjective art in the studio. I needed to give arguing 'the old college try,' and I did, for a long time. Not sure it leads anywhere meaningful, unless you count increasing clarity about how full of sh!t people are. :)
I remember Keanu Reeves said something like: "I've gotten to an age where I'm done arguing with people. You think 2 + 2 = 5? Fine, you're right. Have fun." I sympathize a lot with that sentiment and think it's probably good advice to generally avoid arguing with people (especially on the internet, and especially regarding politics). But you can occasionally find examples of real, genuine, good faith arguing, and those are precious. If you can find them, they're wonderful and bring all sorts of insights. But if you're having trouble finding them, best to stay away from arguing altogether. Or at least, that's my bullshit advice. :)
I just stumbled on this blog from someone who upvoted it (or whatever is the correct term) on Notes. I was especially drawn to the blog title because I attended a Willie Nelson concert this summer where his son Micah sang a song with the same title that my wife and I have been singing as catharsis to explain the world ever since. I subscribed after reading several older posts. I especially like the concept of cynical Darwinism, which economist and Substack writer Arnold Kling seems to deploy in his blog In My Tribe. I posted this comment because the author appears to read them, for what that is worth.
It's very interesting, I love what you write. It is very addictive when you identify. It is a truth that you can apply to numerous aspects of reality. It happened to psychoanalysts when Freud's theories emerged. It also happened with Marx and communist theory. Darwinism is another one of those ideas with that potential, but I think the originality with which you apply it is brilliant.
I think the danger of all these ideas is to lose sight of the fact that they are just a prism from which to analyze things, capable of bearing much fruit, but also capable of eclipsing other truths. I think the definitive post would be for you to make one entitled. Darwinism is bullshit.
Thanks. You may be right, but Freudianism and Marxism have been debunked by advances in psychology and economics, yet Darwinism remains the centerpiece of modern biology. So I think Darwinism is a much stronger foundation upon which to build one’s worldview. Sure, maybe my worldview will collapse if Darwinism gets debunked, but I doubt that will happen. People have been trying to discredit Darwinism for almost two centuries, and they’ve repeatedly failed, only serving to make the theory stronger and stronger. I think the theory is here to stay, whether we like it or not. Yes, Darwinism is a prism like any other theory, but it’s a very powerful one, and it’s the one that I’ve chosen to focus on.
Good essay, David.
"But because autistic-adjacent people aren’t socially intelligent enough to recognize that politics is about tribalism and loyalty—and concealing the fact that it’s about tribalism and loyalty—they naively focus on facts and logic, and get frustrated by others’ unwillingness to share their focus. I’m guessing you probably belong in this category." OMG, you diagnosed me!
For 'psuedoargument', how about 'proxy-argument'?
And point 14. 'The person dodges your question', the sooner you can find the right question to ask, the sooner you can find out whether your co-arguee (?) is really arguing in good faith. At least, that's been my experience.
These posts keep getting better. Such provocative and refreshing stuff, very grounding. So grateful, thank you again David. But I'm still struggling with the core hypothesis: Everything Is Bullshit. Okay, ergo, evolutionary psychology is bullshit, amirite? ... and that would make this post yet another status-seeking effort to vaunt your tribal bona fides, yes? And my own effort to serve you up some of your own medicine is just my own weak sauce one-up, one that you will deftly counter with an intellectual left hook disguised as an empathetic and friendly reply...
Super fun! Doing my best here to lean into the formidable Pinsofian worldview. Whether it jaundices or clarifies my view I am uncertain ;-)
Thanks, Donald. The title "everything is bullshit" is intended as tongue-in-cheek. You should interpret it as "many many things are bullshit" or "much more things are bullshit than you might think." I obviously don't think evolutionary psychology is bullshit or I wouldn't have gotten a PhD in it and devoted years of my life to studying it. Yes all that striving probably comes down to a status motive at the end of the day, but that doesn't mean the ideas are wrong. An idea can be status-motivated and correct at the same time. In fact, we often gain status by having correct ideas, and I hope that what status I've gained here is due to the correctness of my ideas. So I'm not a complete nihilist and you shouldn't take my blog as endorsing that view. Cheers and thanks again for the kind words.