The official site of bestselling author Michael Shermer The official site of bestselling author Michael Shermer

Hooey. Drivel. Baloney…

published April 2016
Would you know it if you saw it?
magazine cover

Babble, bafflegab, balderdash, bilge, blabber, blarney, blather, bollocks, bosh, bunkum. These are a few of the synonyms (from just the b’s) for the demotic descriptor BS (as commonly abbreviated). The Oxford English Dictionary equates it with “nonsense.” In his best-selling 2005 book on the subject, Princeton University philosopher Harry Frankfurt famously distinguished BS from lying: “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.” BS may or may not be true, but its “truthiness” (in comedian Stephen Colbert’s famous neologism) is meant to impress through obfuscation—that is, by saying something that sounds profound but may be nonsense.

Example: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation.” This is an actual tweet composed by Deepak Chopra, as quoted by University of Waterloo psychologist Gordon Pennycook and his colleagues in a paper published in the November 2015 issue of Judgment and Decision Making. The scientists set out to determine “the factors that predispose one to become or to resist becoming” a victim of what they called “pseudo-profound” BS, or language “constructed to impress upon the reader some sense of profundity at the expense of a clear exposition of meaning or truth.” I was cited in the paper for describing Chopra’s language as “woo-woo nonsense.” For instance, in a 2010 debate we had at the California Institute of Technology that was televised on ABC’s Nightline, in the audience Q&A, Chopra defines consciousness as “a superposition of possibilities,” to which physicist Leonard Mlodinow replies: “I know what each of those words mean. I still don’t think I know….”

Chopra’s definition of consciousness certainly sounds like pseudo-profundity, but I have since gotten to know him and can assure readers that he doesn’t create such phrases to intentionally obscure meaning. He believes that quantum physics explains consciousness, so invoking terms from that field makes sense in his mind, even though to those not so inclined, much of what he says sounds like, well, BS.

These are examples of what cognitive psychologist Dan Sperber meant when he wrote in “The Guru Effect,” a 2010 article in the Review of Philosophy and Psychology: “All too often, what readers do is judge profound what they have failed to grasp.” To find out if some people are more or less inclined to accept BS as legit based on their ability (or lack thereof) to grasp language (or lack thereof), Pennycook et al. began by distinguishing two types of thinking: one, intuitive—rapid and automatic cognition—and, two, reflective—slower and effortful cognition. Type 1 thinking makes us vulnerable to BS because it takes time and effort to think (and say), “I know what each of those words mean. I still don’t think I know….” Pennycook and his team tested the hypothesis that higher intelligence and a superior analytical cognitive style (analyticity) leads to a greater capacity to detect and reject pretentious BS. Employing standard measures of intelligence (for example, the Wordsum test) and analyticity (for example, the Cognitive Reflection Test), the psychologists presented subjects with a number of meaningless statements produced by the New Age Bullshit Generator, such as “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself” and “Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is joy.”

In four studies on more than 800 subjects, the authors found that the higher the intelligence and analyticity of subjects, the less likely they were to rate such statements as profound. Conversely, and revealingly, they concluded that those most receptive to pseudo-profound BS are also more prone to “conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.” Apropos of one of this column’s skeptical leitmotifs, detecting BS, according to the authors, “is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims.”

Skepticism should never be indiscriminate and should always be discerning of a claim’s verisimilitude based on evidence and logic, regardless of language. But language matters, so it is incumbent on us all to transduce our neuro-phonemic excitatory action potentials into laconic phonological resonances unencumbered by extraneous and obfuscating utterances. And that’s no BS.

topics in this column:

11 Comments to “Hooey. Drivel. Baloney…”

  1. Bob Says:

    Could have mentioned Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow. Seems to be same as Type 1 and Type 2 thinking

  2. James Brotherton Says:

    Bullshit is the essence of proclivity, and I ain’t shit’in ya.

  3. Doug Dean Says:

    Aristotle called bullshit on Plato’s ‘second world’ millennia ago while acknowledging his guru status, “even if this sort of search indeed becomes uphill because the forms were introduced by a man who was loved.”

  4. Daniel A. Gautreau Says:

    My favorite Deepak Chopra utterance is,”The universe is an emergent property of the mind of God.” I want to know whether God told him so,or whether he figured this out himself, and what methods he has employed to determine that he is not mistaken.

  5. Kurt Schurenberg Says:

    Hooey. Drivel. Baloney…” AKA “the viral phenomonon principle”.

  6. Kurt Schurenberg Says:


  7. Joe Says:

    Most of the time when I read Shermer, I am struck by how so much of what he writes reads exactly like that which he rails against: ” “pseudo-profound” BS, or language “constructed to impress upon the reader some sense of profundity at the expense of a clear exposition of meaning or truth.” ”

    Funny how often the pot calls the kettle black.

  8. ernest reinhart Says:

    If you cannot tell the difference between Shermer and the woo-woos you are smoking some bad shit

  9. Joe Says:


    “Psuedo-profound BS” and “profundity at the expense of a clear exposition of meaning or truth” is psuedo-profound bull and profundity at the expense of clear exposition of meaning or truth whether one is pitching woo or science. You don’t get a pass because of the subject matter. Shermer loves to expound at length while often saying very little.

    I live in the great state of California. The shit we’re smoking out here is some of the finest in the land. May you be so fortunate some day to sample it.

  10. Walt Dardyman Says:

    “The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.” – Niels Bohr

  11. Betsy Lawlor Says:

    Useful article for my students, with a fun last paragraph. But the link to the New-Age Bullshit Generator is broken. (Should be

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how Akismet processes your comment data.