I think vague language is sometimes bullshit but sometimes honesty.
And sometimes honesty can be bullshit too. Meaning true facts can be communicated in a way that I would consider ‘bullshit-ish’, or severely nit-picky to the point of absurdity.
Sometimes my own knowledge and understanding are vague.
I find this is the case alot, and I would add that I think Acrackedpot is on point with:
I think “deliberate” is doing most of the heavy lifting in this post.
I think all vagueness can be considered bullshit, but not all bullshit can be considered vague.
It’s how someone deals with their lack of knowledge about a particular subject in social or personal relationships that determines whether vagueness or even bullshit is negative or not though.
For example in the social conversation about becoming a theoretical physicist, I could say to someone “you probably shouldn’t try for a career in theoretical physics unless you are very smart”, but I assume that most people would consider this to be common sense. So why do I really need to say it?
If I don’t have anything of value beyond common sense to contribute to the conversation because of my lack of knowledge or understanding, there are other motivating factors which make me say something so vague instead of just listening to people who might have more to contribute. Am I expected to say something, or expected to listen? Am I expected to know something beyond common sense, or expected to always say something stupid, funny or outrageous? Am I interested in being seen as a contributor or as a lurker?
Novices I think are rightly forgiven for bullshitting when they don’t have much to contribute initially, as long as they can learn and improve their understanding of a subject enough to bullshit less and less as time goes by. Or at the least bullshit in a deliberately entertaining way. You might say they are good bullshitters.
Posers on the other hand are generally not forgiven for bullshitting because they don’t learn and improve their understanding of a particular subject, and continue to bullshit as much or possibly even more than they did in the beginning. You might say they are bad bullshitters.
On the other hand, especially in close personal and social relations, bullshitting is a common past time which indicates understanding, trust and intimacy between people. Bullshitting in the confident belief the other person ‘gets it’, is a way of intelligently playing with the construct of the communication.
Human communication always involves 2 parallel streams of information:
1) is the logical verbal information language component which communicates facts as words, and
2) is the emotional component, what the subtext of the information is supposed to make the listener feel and is communicated through tone, emphasis and non verbal means like facial expression and body language.
If 1 is a false statement, 2 is up in the air for positive or negative response from the listener: a good bullshitter can entertain you for hours, and is really the core of the movie industry—actors and actresses are all really really good bullshitters;
on the other hand a bad bullshitter makes things uncomfortable with no apparent purpose other than to pass themselves off as knowledgeable about a particular subject, without providing some qualification like “My best guess is...” or “I know I’m in over my head, but...” They try to lead without knowing where to go.
Asking for feedback as to whether my statements hold any water or not, can ease the strain of trying to take part in the conversation as a novice. So that I expect a good way to participate in a conversation where you lack knowledge or understanding is to throw in some questions along with the vague statements.
And sometimes honesty can be bullshit too. Meaning true facts can be communicated in a way that I would consider ‘bullshit-ish’, or severely nit-picky to the point of absurdity.
I find this is the case alot, and I would add that I think Acrackedpot is on point with:
I think all vagueness can be considered bullshit, but not all bullshit can be considered vague.
It’s how someone deals with their lack of knowledge about a particular subject in social or personal relationships that determines whether vagueness or even bullshit is negative or not though.
For example in the social conversation about becoming a theoretical physicist, I could say to someone “you probably shouldn’t try for a career in theoretical physics unless you are very smart”, but I assume that most people would consider this to be common sense. So why do I really need to say it?
If I don’t have anything of value beyond common sense to contribute to the conversation because of my lack of knowledge or understanding, there are other motivating factors which make me say something so vague instead of just listening to people who might have more to contribute. Am I expected to say something, or expected to listen? Am I expected to know something beyond common sense, or expected to always say something stupid, funny or outrageous? Am I interested in being seen as a contributor or as a lurker?
Novices I think are rightly forgiven for bullshitting when they don’t have much to contribute initially, as long as they can learn and improve their understanding of a subject enough to bullshit less and less as time goes by. Or at the least bullshit in a deliberately entertaining way. You might say they are good bullshitters.
Posers on the other hand are generally not forgiven for bullshitting because they don’t learn and improve their understanding of a particular subject, and continue to bullshit as much or possibly even more than they did in the beginning. You might say they are bad bullshitters.
On the other hand, especially in close personal and social relations, bullshitting is a common past time which indicates understanding, trust and intimacy between people. Bullshitting in the confident belief the other person ‘gets it’, is a way of intelligently playing with the construct of the communication.
Human communication always involves 2 parallel streams of information:
1) is the logical verbal information language component which communicates facts as words, and
2) is the emotional component, what the subtext of the information is supposed to make the listener feel and is communicated through tone, emphasis and non verbal means like facial expression and body language.
If 1 is a false statement, 2 is up in the air for positive or negative response from the listener: a good bullshitter can entertain you for hours, and is really the core of the movie industry—actors and actresses are all really really good bullshitters;
on the other hand a bad bullshitter makes things uncomfortable with no apparent purpose other than to pass themselves off as knowledgeable about a particular subject, without providing some qualification like “My best guess is...” or “I know I’m in over my head, but...” They try to lead without knowing where to go.
Asking for feedback as to whether my statements hold any water or not, can ease the strain of trying to take part in the conversation as a novice. So that I expect a good way to participate in a conversation where you lack knowledge or understanding is to throw in some questions along with the vague statements.