A Practical Guide to Recognizing B.S.

An exercise in critical thinking, to help you wade through the sea of communication

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.

- Mark Twain

We humans have a special tool called language. And we do all kinds of cool things with it. We use it to make art — in the form of poetry and prose. We use it to express ourselves. But perhaps most importantly, we use it to inform and influence each other. That represents the most effective use for the tool of language, but it’s also the most dangerous.

Like any tool, when used well and wisely, language is extremely helpful. It can help build things and fix things. It can fuel cooperation and progress. But when used incorrectly and unwisely, it can cause damage and injury.

When we use a common language, we make an implicit agreement. We agree to use it responsibly, rather than irresponsibly. And we carry on using it with one another in good faith.

The Linguistic Agreement

In essence, we’ve agreed that when we use the tool of language to inform, we’ll do our best to be clear what it is we’re talking about. We will use language as a way to (figuratively) point to something in the world, and describe it. And if we use general or abstract terms, we agree to provide concrete examples to illustrate those generalities and abstractions.

As a result, the other party — the audience — should be able to understand what we’re pointing out. They should be able to imagine what things would look like in the world if the speaker’s statements were true, and what things would look like if they weren’t.

The most basic English sentences bear this out. They have only a subject and a verb:

Beatriz laughed.
Samir chewed.

We can also have subjects and objects with our verbs — where the objects are the nouns that the verbs are acting on. Case in point:

Samir chewed the tofu.

This is all cut and dry. And it adheres to that implicit agreement we’ve made about language. If you tell me ‘Samir chewed the tofu’, I know what you’re pointing at out in the world. And I know what I would have to do to either confirm or deny it. It’s clear to me who Samir is. I know what tofu is. I know what it looks like for someone to chew tofu. So it’s very simple to understand what that looks like.

Sentences like the ones above work because they abide by the implicit agreement. They are specific and concrete. They refer to particular subjects and objects (this guy named Samir and that tofu in his mouth). The sentences point to a particular event in reality that any speaker of the language would clearly understand.

So long as we abide by the agreement, it’s easy to converse with one another. But it’s when we break the agreement that we see trouble.

Breaking the Agreement

We cause trouble when we use subjects and objects that aren’t concrete — abstract subjects like ‘society’. And things are further complicated when we begin to say that abstract subjects are acting (verbs). Things get even more complicated when both the subject and object are abstract, and there’s a verb thrown in there ascribed to one or both of them.

Consider an excerpt like the following tail end of a sentence:

…because at the end of the day, that’s what our patriarchal society devotes the most time, attention, and resources to.

It seems like there’s a very serious statement here. But who are the objects and subjects? And the action — what does it look like, and where is it taking place? No clarification is given. There’s nothing more particular or concrete than this extremely abstract sentence.

or how about this bowl of word salad:

To be ordinary, or even good — anything less than exceptional, really — in a society devoted single-mindedly to greatness, is to be ashamed, guilty, scorned, and worthless.

There’s an assumption in here — that there’s a society devoted single-mindedly to greatness. But what does that even look like? What does it look like for a society to devote itself to something? Doe it require everyone’s devotion, or just a majority? And what does it look like for a society to do something single-mindedly? Isn’t a society a group of people who have their own minds — thus making for plural (and not singular) minds?

The statement lacks concreteness. It points to nothing in particular. And it’s ascribing action to an abstract subject that doesn’t seem to refer to anything in particular we can imagine in the world.

Statements like the two above — whether sentences, paragraphs, or entire pieces of writing — break the linguistic agreement. They fail to point at anything concrete that we can verify. They aren’t offered with any elaboration that includes something concrete as an example. And because they fail to do that, there’s no way to engage with the words. What was meant to inform fails to do so.

The Golden Rules of Communicating

Like any tool, when used well and wisely, language can help build things and fix things. But when used incorrectly and unwisely, it can cause damage and injury.

It’s easy to use the tool of language to influence. But it’s not so easy for the readers or listeners of language to distinguish between language used irresponsibly and language used responsibly. Language used irresponsibly is more colloquially known as BS.

It helps to understand that the hallmark of B.S. is the abstraction and vagueness we see in the 2 example sentences above. When abstract nouns are the subjects or objects, beware. When abstract or collective nouns perform actions that are normally performed by concrete, singular people — beware.

The golden rule for speakers is this: the more serious or significant the statement is meant to be, the more concrete and specific it should be.

The golden rule for listeners is this: if you can’t imagine what it would look like for a statement to be true or false, and you’re not sure what it’s referring to in the world — ask for some elaboration.

The more a statement is meant to influence or initiate action, the more specifics there should be in it. After all, action is concrete and specific. So the statements that are meant to bring it about should be equally as concrete and specific.

So as the listener or reader, demand concreteness. Demand specificity and elaboration. If someone uses an abstract or vague noun, or attributes a concrete and specific verb to an abstract noun — demand clarification.

“According to science….” someone says. You mean, according to the entire academic enterprise? Surely there’s a specific study by specific scientists — on a specific scope of subjects. Which studies? What scientists? What was the sample size? What was the data? This isn’t science skepticism, it’s just a request for specific data to back up a general statement. The scientific method as we know it includes this practice, anyway.

“Freedom is in danger…” you hear. Freedom in general is in danger? Is it someone’s freedom in particular? Is it a specific right — one guaranteed by a specific constitution? What is the danger? If no specificity is given, but a call to action is made — be wary.

The action item here is simple: when you read or listen to a message, listen for the subjects, objects, and verbs. Listen for the adjectives, and whether you can imagine what it looks like for those adjectives to truly describe those nouns — but also what it would look like for the adjectives to not truly describe them.

Keep in mind, this isn’t an invitation to be a contrarian jackass. If someone is trying to inform and influence you, assume at first they’re acting in good faith. If and when they fail to provide you with something concrete and particular, kindly advise them that you’ll need that in order to even understand what they’re trying to tell you.

Agreements have at least two parties. Each has their responsibilities. The agreement of language is no different. So let’s go out there and each live up to our end of the agreement.