"We’ve all come across them – that one person who boasts and over-exaggerates every story. They pop into your water-cooler conversations with their own anecdotes, ones that somehow outdo yours in every way possible. They’ve met celebrities, gone on ridiculous adventures, somehow know everything about every possible topic, but you know deep down it’s all a bunch of BS.
"Bullshitting is defined by philosopher Harry Frankfurt as “communicating with little to no concern for evidence or truth”. And of all the BSing that goes on, there’s no worse place for it to happen than in the workplace. You want to be surrounded by co-workers who are giving you cold, hard facts with evidence, not those who invent stories. The latter lowers your credibility just by association. It undermines trust and results in an unsettling workplace.
"It’s no secret that managers are more likely to reward those who are full of flattery. Research has shown that these people strategically make others feel important. They observe emotions and wait until co-workers or supervisors are in the “right mood” to seek rewards.
"...An empirical study on BS
"A recent study was done at Wake Forest University that looked into the antecedents of bullshitting. John Petrocelli and team ran a series of experiments that examined the idea of a person having i) too little, ii) adequate, or iii) too much topic knowledge, and the extent to which they bullshitted.
"The first experiment explored the role of knowledge. These go back to situations where one knows nothing, or too much about a topic. The experiment also looked at the obligation to express an opinion. Finally, they looked at the ease of bullshitting. If you know you’re talking to a gullible person, are you more likely to bullshit? Are the people around you less-informed about something? Is there an easy way to enhance yourself, and make yourself seem more knowledgeable?
"Half of the participants in this study learned about the personality of an individual. They then considered the individual's behavior and listed their thoughts. Some participants were told that the thoughts would be scored for accuracy by people who knew the individual well. This condition was randomly assigned to participants.
"There were also participants were not obligated to share their thoughts. Those who listed their thoughts were asked to consider each thought, in regard to how concerned they were with genuine evidence.
"The results of this first experiment showed that people would bullshit in two main scenarios: If they expected to get away with it; and if they needed to give their opinion on something – regardless of how knowledgeable they were on the topic.
"The second experiment observed how social accountability affects bullshitting. Participants reported their attitudes on social issues and were randomly assigned to one of four accountability conditions. In three of these conditions, participants believed they would have to justify their opinions to a sociology professor. Other participants were not exposed to this condition. All participants were asked to list their thoughts on the three issues.
"The results of this second experiment support the initial predictions: People were more likely to bullshit when it seemed easier to do so – that is, when they thought they weren’t being held accountable for what they were saying. When they were expected to justify themselves in front of someone, they refrained from bullshitting."
Comments
Post a Comment