Some studies estimate that the average person processes about 74 gigabytes of data daily through digital sources, roughly equivalent to watching around 16 movies. Other estimates quantify it by the number of words, with some suggesting that we consume over 100,000 words of information daily, including digital and non-digital sources.
With such a relentless flow of information, it’s easy to encounter the same claims repeatedly. And when something is repeated often enough, we may start accepting it as truth—even if it’s false. This can complicate and obstruct accurate communication.
The questions are, “Why do bullshit arguments work and spread?” and “How do we confront them?”
We’ve already discussed one of the reasons why bullshit (BS) information may spread, which is based on the following adage by programmer Alberto Brandolini:
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”
The quantity he gives is not essential; it’s a figure of speech—or at least I hope so. But, simply speaking, it’s much easier to create false information than to refute it. This is referred to as Brandolini’s law or sometimes the bullshit asymmetry.
Most people will stop at this information and realize, “Oh… Brandolini’s law explains why my uncle talks all that nonsense during BBQ events.”
But why do we stop at that realization? Why don’t we try to understand the phenomenon of Brandolini’s law and how to deal with it?
If you still doubt the effects of Brandolini’s law, let’s return to memory lane. Let’s remember the tobacco industry’s constant campaigns to create doubt about the harmful effects of tobacco. Or we can dig up less harmful information, such as Albert Einstein failing school math. And, if you were born in the 80s or 90s, you probably know you should pee on jellyfish stings to make the pain disappear.
But why are these BS claims so challenging to refute? I see primarily three reasons for that.
- Creating false information is easy. We have infinite information units at our disposal when we want to make new stories. Think about everything we know and how we can combine these to create stories. Meanwhile, seeing you’re reading this tells me you care about accuracy and honest communication. So, you rely on a much more limited arsenal of information since the information we know or think we know is infinitesimal compared to what we don’t know.
- Another reason we might struggle to refute Uncle Stieg’s stories during BBQs relates to the type of information he shares: positives. It’s often much harder to prove that something doesn’t exist or didn’t happen than to make an unverified positive claim. For example, let’s say someone claims a secret plan exists to control our minds through social media. If we smell BS, we now have to show evidence that such a plan doesn’t exist, which can be difficult because you’re essentially asked to disprove something, also known as proving a negative.
- Lastly, I’ll mention another strong reason why BS sticks. They tap into something inherent to us, something that intrigues us and makes us feel: emotions and emotional stories. False information often taps into people’s fears, anger, and hopes, making us more likely to believe and share.
As we’ve discussed before, it’s about volume to some extent. We spend too much time researching whatever we suspect to be BS claims. By the time we have a rebuttal, the topic moves on, and we suddenly have to refute new information—it’s a bullshit/rebuttal cycle.
People with scientific and analytical mindsets, who thirst to communicate information as accurately as possible, are at the losing end of the battle. We’re simply too slow to refute BS.
However, although there’s no one correct way to counter BS, we can create conditions that reduce its volume. The video below discusses these conditions and how to deal with information sustainably.
Or check out the video repository here.
