19 Comments
Jun 13, 2023Liked by David Pinsof

I love this entire argument and you have me convinced and therefore in thrall to your provocative truths and subsequent status that I hope to tap into over time for my own purposes by reading your Substack.

However, one nagging and very fundamental question occurs to me:

You never said (or proved) *why* interesting stuff is "overrated" and why reality is actually preferable to bullshit.

And, I especially found this statement unfounded: "If there’s one thing that’s preventing us from connecting with our fellow human beings, it’s this perverse obsession we have with being interesting." Isn't that the very thing you spent the whole essay explaining that helps us connect with our fellow human beings? Our grandiloquent bullshitting ability?

Again, you spent an entire essay talking about how bullshit is more interesting than reality because, basically, we "guys literally only want one thing and it's f*cking disgusting!" WE WANT TO FIT IN. That's really the prime directive for a humanity that survives best in groups. It's the most adaptive thing we do!

If fitting in requires a total abrogation of reality, so be it! So, then, maybe it's reality that is overrated! Or maybe a *certain kind of reality* the (theoretical) kind that exists outside of our social world and human, subjective, brain-saddled cognitive models.

Because the reality that matters for humans is social reality. Human life, like other life, (seems, at least to our status-hungry evolutionary biologists) to be all about survival and reproduction. And the killer app humans found to survive and reproduce and become the dominant complex life form on the planet is to socially coordinate with other humans. The more we do this, the greater our individual chances of both. Status has clear evolutionary utility. And, therefore, so, too does bullshit.

Remember that famous quote attributed to a Bush Administration aide by Ron Suskind:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'."

This is appalling, cynical, and hubristic, but I now think I appreciate it's deeper truth after having endured the Trump Era. Is not "Teflon Don" the best paragon for the practical usefulness of bullshit? He's got two impeachments, two divorces, six bankruptcies, thousands of civil suits, two active criminal indictments to his name, and (most damningly) two electoral defeats but he is STILL the theoretical front-runner for the Presidency of the United States. And even after all his bullshitty predations (and those of the country underneath him), the United States is STILL the most powerful country on the planet. Despite... or BECAUSE... of all its bullshit? You tell me! Because it's not just Donald Trump's MAGA bullshit that is so captivating at home and abroad. But all that considerable soft power that the US has always wielded is, by your definition, also bullshit. Even the much preferable Obama Era "Hope and Change" and his famous eloquence and ability to inspire us to "the better angels of our nature." I mean, what is that, if not bullshit? I liked it, too, but it's bullshit. It's just much nicer bullshit. And, like the MAGA bullshit, it was very good at motivating groups of people to coordinate.

Another way of putting it was the title of the recent book by Peter Pomerantsev about the "post-truth" world of Putin's Russia: "Nothing is True and Everything is Possible." Putin is, if anything, very full of bullshit. But it "works" for him, doesn't it? He's still in power after two decades. He's perhaps quietly the richest man on the planet. Russia seems to run on fumes, but it runs yet, despite the many many rumors of its collapse. Putin uses his bullshit to coordinate his countrymen to an unlikely degree so that they put up with outrageous untruths and unreasonable hardships toward... what? "Greatness!" "The Russian Mir!" Bullshit.

But hey now... the limiting factor to bullshit, I hear you saying, is that eventually Reality wins, right? You can't bullshit forever! Putin is certainly learning this in Ukraine right now. We did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, et al. (Or did we learn...?) Sure, and we may well bullshit our way to oblivion as a species this century because of Climate Change, nuclear war, the AI apocalypse or whatever. But, from the perspective of a single organism in a social species, it is always better to maximize for short-term than long-term. Blag on now and leave the consequences to your future self. You'll be better prepared for the backlash when you consolidate your social position now, anyway. The jury is more kind to the rich and sexy! Anyway, even if you think you're so rational and non-bullshitty, the future is always uncertain and we have extremely limited control over it. What you can control right now, though, is how good of a bullshitter you are and therefore how socially successful you are. So do that!

But what about the immediate utility of understanding some basics about reality and not making stupid choices? You don't get the Manhattan Project and world-ending nuclear weapons with just bullshit, right? No. But you don't get the massive social coordination that made the Manhattan Project successful without thermonuclear levels of bullshit. J. Robert Oppenheimer isn't going to go against all his core principles without placating him with a lot of bullshit. Nor are you going to convince 130,000 workers (including some of the world's premier geniuses) to pack up and move to the desert and carry out some mysterious tasks in secret without bullshit narratives about The National Interest, etc. A lot of those scientists were now on their second or third round of jingoistic bullshit, riding around on different regimes with different flavors of bullshit to coordinate their efforts toward some other dubious bullshit like the racial imperative for eradicating the Jews or bathing Eastern Europe in blood in the name of Lebensraum. But the United States was better at bullshit than the Germans or anyone else at that time, so we got the A-Bomb and rockets to the Moon and epically cool stuff that... fundamentally doesn't matter, either, except to, yep... DISPLAY OUR GROUP'S SUPERIORITY.

This reduces all of human history to bullshit, I know. But I just went one step further than you in your provocative thesis. And I'm arguing that the reason nobody wants to get over their bullshit is that bullshit is really useful. Even if/when the future gets hella bad from all our bullshit, whom do you think will survive? The practical, reasonable people? No! Nobody likes them! The bullshitters will inherit the earth! Or what's left of it, anyway...

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your thoughts. The point about our obsession with “interesting” contributing to our social alienation: it’s more about bullshit as a status-seeking tactic than bullshit as a fitting in tactic (though even for the latter, we primarily want to fit in with high status people). The idea is that we’re so busy trying to befriend “interesting” people that we miss out on relationships with boring people, whose companionship is underrated. And if the interesting people won’t befriend us, we’re stuck with no friends, or we’re stuck with virtual friends on the podcasts we listen to, which aren’t as fulfilling. But this is just speculation--I could be wrong. Social alienation is complicated and I don’t think this is any more than one piece of the puzzle. As for the social utility of bullshit, I certainly agree it exists. In fact, it has to exist; otherwise we would not have evolved to be a bullshitting animal. It’s easy to reflect on this fact and despair, but there’s some hope. Yes, we all bullshit, but some of us do it more than others, and there’s definitely an appetite for anti-bullshit stuff too. If there weren’t, nobody would be reading this. Bullshit is also fragile--it relies on common knowledge to maintain--so it can collapse at any moment. Bullshit bubbles can burst pretty easily (assuming there’s not a state apparatus to prevent the bubble from bursting). You rightly point out a lot of depressing stuff about politics, and it’s something I will continue to think about on this substack.

Expand full comment

I feel like I should live the rest of my life in a scuba suit after reading all of the bullshit you two just wrote.

Expand full comment

Please Like and Subscribe!

Expand full comment

You make a lot of great points here about people bing interested in "information that helps us get what we want from the people around us, including the ugly things we can’t admit we want." But I'm unconvinced that people aren't *also* interested in and motivated by truth and usefulness. Both things can be true at the same time.

The first two points in your "list of problems with the idea that humans are primarily interested in useful truth"—the ones about humans being interested in fiction—disregard that there's a ton of truth and usefulness in fiction.

Roger Ebert has said that movies are like machines that generate empathy.

Sam Harris has spoken (https://dynamic.wakingup.com/course/CO00BB451?code=SCD1708C8&share_id=7226F5F3&source=content%20share) and written about self and other and theory of mind as they relate to the unique form of "social encounter" that movies allow us, saying—among many other things—that "it is difficult to find a situation in which we feel *less* self-conscious than when sitting in a darkened theater watching a film, and yet, we are contemplating the beliefs, intentions, and desires of other people the entire time."

George Saunders has called Anton Chekhov's stories "reconsideration machines" that seem to bring both author and reader into "a constant state of reexamination. ('Am I sure? Is it really so? Is my preexisting opinion causing me to omit anything?')."

There is truth and utility to be found in all of that.

(The list of people saying things like this about fiction obviously goes on and on. I mention these examples specifically only because they are fresh on my mind from having just written this essay: https://symbolsandrituals.substack.com/p/connection-machines)

Even if every one of us is hopelessly full of shit, which I agree that we might be, particularly in the social realm, I would argue that fiction—including/in addition to writing, music, stand-up comedy, and all other meaningful forms of art—is one of the few things that can make us a little less so. Coupled with some kind of awareness practice (meditation, journaling, whatever), it reveals people to themselves in ways that other mediums can't.

For anyone who's interested in understanding themselves and others better, that is useful.

As far as truth goes, here are a few sentences from No Country for Old Men that came to mind today with Cormac McCarthy's passing:

"My daddy always told me to just do the best you knew how and tell the truth. He said there was nothin to set a man’s mind at ease like wakin up in the morning and not havin to decide who you were. And if you done somethin wrong just stand up and say you done it and say you’re sorry and get on with it. Dont haul stuff around with you."

There's more truth and utility in those words than in any of the ones in the last DocuSign contract I signed, although that and all of the other boring things you mentioned have their own boring truths and uses, too.

Lastly, on contemplating things like the meaning of life, I mostly agree with you. But going back to Saunders one more time—he has misquoted Einstein many times as saying, "No worthy problem is ever solved in the plane of its original conception.” He uses it (in part) as a teaching tactic for writing short fiction. But I think it applies to many things in life. Contemplating the meaning of life, the human condition, human nature, and so on might not (i.e., almost certainly won't) lead us to answers to those specific questions/problems. But that doesn't mean they won't lead us to other useful truths about living and being a person.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Brian. I actually agree with you. I only brought up fiction to show a clear area where we all know it’s false but we’re still captivated by it, but it might have been a misleading example. I’m actually planning to write a post about how fiction might be one of the least bullshitty parts of the human condition. I think you’ll enjoy it. Stay tuned.

Expand full comment

Sounds great. Looking forward to it.

Expand full comment

You make a good point here. If everyone was full of shit, we'd all be dead. The bullshit referred to here is all about tried to secure prestige. Humans are the only species we know of that has prestige. If it was all, or even mostly bullshit it would never have evolved in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with us. If our social processes are producing results that are bad, this just means that the environment selecting for these processes should be changed to one that doesn't select for these bad results.

Expand full comment
Aug 3Liked by David Pinsof

Nice writing, and it makes a good case. But ignores that some inflaming thoughts that rile people up are the truths of tomorrow, which today's(in historical concepts) inertia doesn't accept, such as:

Heliocentrism: The Earth revolves around the Sun, not vice versa.

Evolution: Species evolve over time through natural selection.

Germ Theory: Diseases are caused by microorganisms, not miasma or supernatural forces.

Democracy: The idea that people have the right to choose their leaders and have a say in governance, and not a god-given birthright

Secularism: Separation of religion and state affairs.

Relativity: Time and space are not absolute but relative and interconnected.

Quantum Mechanics: Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously until observed.

I feel that the author and this piece is projecting their cynicism about the scientific method and advocating for inertia " We’re interested in contrarian hot takes, even though the conventional wisdom is usually truer and more useful. ". This presupposes humanity has reached its peak and has nowhere else to go.

It might be true that a vast amount of 'interesting' things might be reputation signaling and social cues, but it takes only a few people to show that the current consensus is outdated. For example, while tinkering, a couple of bicycle mechanics showed that flying is possible, aka the Wright Brothers. Before that, it was thought to be entirely impossible.

The replication crisis is a systemic headwind in academia with the 'publish or perish' mandate, and the scientists are actors in a system where the incentives are broken. But that doesn't mean the scientific method is broken; it is entirely the only way humanity has come to reach for objective truths. I would argue that it is wonderful that there is a replication crisis so that you can junk the articles which don't take humanity forward.

In summary, I would have argued for more critical thinking in those who find 'interesting' and for considering the boring interesting(life lessons from the classics), rather than quelling the interesting altogether.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you. Nice caveats to the general thesis. I would only add that the average person is not very interested in these topics compared to other bullshit, despite their deep truth and insight. Yes I agree we are capable of seeking truth and insight, and strong incentives for truth can push truth to become widely accepted among scientists and often the larger public as well. But truth faces strong headwinds, as the prevalence of flatearthism, intelligent design, quantum healing, anti-democratic populism, etc. can attest. This post is about those headwinds.

Expand full comment
Jun 13, 2023Liked by David Pinsof

Great article. There's a lot of rationalists who aren't very rational but want to to be seen as one on Twitter. Also, I'm aware that I recently subscribed to this newsletter because I want to signal that I don't fall for BS!

Expand full comment

I might be one of the earliest who did this. I am a very early Internet adopter, 1995 or so. It was the guestbook of a music mag, basically imagine the comment section here, just without threads. Also, IRC. In both cases, as it was only text, and nothing else, it evolved in the direction of saying interesting things. Basically we were treating each other like books, or magazines. At some point I explicitly said I don't do friendships, because most people are boring and online discussions are more interesting.

Expand full comment
May 20Liked by David Pinsof

Interesting (heh) text which seems relevant here: https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/epistemology/2012-sistery-tryingtoseethrough.html

> Insight porn does not have to be true to be effective; it merely has to be geared to the sophistication of its audience, producing insights of the right size. Any given insight may be illusion; reality is best served when we are skeptical of each new insight.

> We have learned to glorify insight itself. If that is our policy, we must avoid clinging to any particular insight or truth. All must be fair game for our hungry insight addictions to feed on. It is painful to have one's calcified insights challenged (as alluded to earlier regarding conspiracy theories), but by belonging to the cognitive community of people like us, don't we consent to this threat of upheaval?

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the rec, this does look relevant.

Expand full comment
Nov 14, 2023Liked by David Pinsof

I love boring.

Expand full comment
Jun 16, 2023Liked by David Pinsof

This article is correct, and I can tell because it sounds true despite how biased I am against it -- I'm consistently the most interesting person any of my acquaintances know, am frequently eloquent and thought-provoking, and have never actually contributed any value to society whatsoever.

Just kidding: in addition to those true statements about myself I am also the kind of person who is proud of already knowing all this and already tells everyone that everything is bullshit. This article correlates well with my existing biases.

Expand full comment
Jun 15, 2023Liked by David Pinsof

Another blockbuster from the House of Pinsof

Bro you criminally underrated ! ! Hat tip 🙌👏

Expand full comment

Pinsoff writes "Even scientists aren’t interested in science per se. They’re interested in very specific kinds of science, namely the science that supports their pet theories and wins them prestige."

Natural scientists do not necessarily win prestige through their pet theories. I was an industrial scientist. Our most prestigious scientists were those whose projects collectively had the biggest impact on production outcomes such as cost of goods. The most prestigious scientists are promoted to higher ranks on the technical ladder Some scientists seeking more money move into management. Advancement on the managerial ladder converts a scientist/engineer into a businessman, and their route to prestige/more money follows different rules than those of us who stay on the technical ladder.

Industrial science has the most direct connection between a scientist's output and real-world outcomes. Natural science developed in the early days often went hand-in-hand with advancing technology producing real-world outcomes valued by those already holding prestige, who then bestow prestige on you simply by valuing your knowledge. This is how science gained its reputation as a good (and eventually the best) way of finding out what is true about the natural world.

The further away from real-world applications a scientist works, the greater the likelihood that Pinsoff's statement will be true.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

It's a really good question, and I wish I had a better answer. The first step is just recognizing that *there is a difference* between what's interesting and what's useful/true. I think many of our problems stem from people failing to distinguish between them in the first place. I think it's worth developing an intuitive sense of the "vibe" of truth/insight and the "vibe" of interesting bullshit. I plan to write about this at some point in the future. For example, moral complexity is part of the "vibe" of truth. There are very few genuine heroes or villains in this world, and there certainly aren't enough of either one to make up an entire political party, country, occupation, or religious group. So any morally simplistic message about the evilness, or virtuousness, of a large group of people is bound to be bullshit. Anything that's designed to make you feel that way about a large group of people is bound to be bullshit. Beyond that, I'm afraid I don't have much advice. I'm still struggling to resist the pull of the interesting in my own life, and I'm mostly failing. It's hard. One thing I have been able to do is resist the urge to judge people for being boring. I used to subtly think I was superior to people who didn't have interesting things to say, and that was a really fucked up part of myself that I've learned to overcome. If you're bored in a conversation, then make it your job to change the subject to something more interesting. Or else just try to find the mental universe behind the eyes of the person you're talking to interesting, because it always is interesting, even if you can't easily see it. Anyways, I ultimately don't know the answer to your question, but that's the best I got for you. It's something I will continue to think about.

Expand full comment