If Books Could Kill - August 10, 2023


'On Bullsh*t' and the Pundit Industrial Complex [TEASER]

Liberal Fascism God And Man At Yale

Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

175.13

Word count

2,844

Sentence count

230

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Toxicity

57

sentences flagged

Hate speech

11

sentences flagged


Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 So after we read this book and we realized that it wasn't as, like, meaty as it could have been, we thought that since the book itself does not provide very many examples of the concept, we thought we would provide a couple examples.
00:00:15.640 So me and Peter have both pulled a couple of little, I'm trying to say examples again, little exemplars of what we think is some of the specific bullshit that we are surrounded by.
00:00:30.580 So, yeah, what are yours, Peter? 0.72
00:00:32.800 Maybe the foremost example, quote unquote, it's not a discreet example, but Donald Trump as a concept.
00:00:39.740 Yeah, that's the obvious one.
00:00:40.640 Yeah, because I think a lot of people began rediscovering this thesis in the Trump era.
00:00:45.980 There were a lot of people writing about him using this framework, essentially because Trump's relationship with the truth felt very unique.
00:00:54.520 Right. Yeah. Like politicians who lie are not a new thing, but he's a liar doesn't feel like an adequate explanation of what Trump was doing or why he was doing it.
00:01:06.180 Yeah, it's kind of incredible. 0.99
00:01:06.840 I was like digging around for examples of just like Donald Trump saying bullshit and it's overwhelming. Like he used to say during the primaries that the United States had the highest taxes in the world and people would be like, no, that's not true. But he just kept saying it. Right. And I think that this really crystallized for me when in the first week of his presidency, he claimed that his inauguration crowds were larger than Obama's. Right. 0.79
00:01:36.380 Which in and of itself is just sort of a lie. But then he trotted out Sean Spicer in a press conference, right? To like dig in on this. And the thing is that there were bird's eye images of the inauguration.
00:01:52.700 Right. You could just see side by side that Obama's had more. Yeah. There was a sort of like surreal moment where Trump and his people were all denying the obvious reality of what we were looking at. Yeah. Like literally denying what was in front of all of our faces. Yeah. And that's where I think this analysis becomes useful because lying doesn't seem like a sufficient description of what that is.
00:02:18.920 Yeah. Like I associate lying with an intent to deceive the other person. But I don't think that Trump was trying to deceive anyone. Right. So I do think that it's safe to say that stuff like that was something other than mere deception. Right. And I think that that's where Frankfurt's theory of bullshit helps sort of like articulate that intuition we all have.
00:02:44.360 Yeah. I always think of contrasting the way that Trump lies with the way that George W. Bush would lie. One of his canonical lies was that he said that the tax cuts that he passed, like 75% of the benefit went to small business owners. And so it sounds like, oh, small business owners. But the way that they're defining small business owners is anyone who owns any stake in a small business, which is basically if you own stocks, you probably have some small businesses in there. 0.90
00:03:10.260 So it's basically just like a way of saying like most of it went to rich people.
00:03:14.740 Right, right.
00:03:15.120 Oftentimes with Trump, you'd hear people say like, oh, politicians have always lied.
00:03:18.620 But I do think, yes, there's a huge difference between the way that Trump lies and the way that previous generations of politicians have lied.
00:03:25.600 Right.
00:03:25.720 I don't even know people who lie the way that Trump does.
00:03:28.900 Right.
00:03:29.140 Like it's like, oh, sorry, you missed the concert last night.
00:03:30.980 No, I was there.
00:03:31.800 Yeah.
00:03:32.300 You'd be like, what?
00:03:32.820 One of the funny sort of Trump dynamics, Trump-isms that I stumbled across when I was just like, what were Trump's most bullshitty moments was that people realized that he, when asked about his plans regarding a certain policy item that he had no plans for, would always say, in the next couple of weeks, you're going to see our plan for this.
00:03:54.520 It's a lie.
00:03:55.300 Right. But I think what's interesting about what Trump is doing, and I think this highlights both a problem with Frankfurt's thesis and a utility that it has. The problem is that I don't think I have identified a lot of real world bullshit that is distinctly not a lie.
00:04:15.860 Trump's a good example because he's bullshitting and lying at the same time, I think. 0.95
00:04:22.200 But I do think that what's happening with Trump, for example, is that his goal is not
00:04:30.980 to obfuscate the truth per se.
00:04:33.780 His goal is to advance a narrative about himself.
00:04:38.620 To him, there's no material distinction between what is true and what makes him feel good.
00:04:44.420 Yeah. 0.97
00:04:44.900 And so, yes, he is lying at these various points, but he is also bullshitting. 0.86
00:04:51.900 Right. 0.57
00:04:52.360 He is lying almost by coincidence.
00:04:54.720 Yeah, because you could say that when Trump says like we fast tracked production of the
00:04:58.360 COVID vaccine, right, or like minority employment rates are higher than they've ever been. 0.95
00:05:03.840 Those are true statements, but they're kind of doing the same thing. 1.00
00:05:07.360 Right.
00:05:07.740 As when he's lying.
00:05:08.960 No matter what he's saying, he is always saying Donald Trump rules.
00:05:13.200 Yeah, exactly.
00:05:13.760 Yeah.
00:05:14.080 So the one that I kept thinking of actually was, remember in Nudge part two, we talked about their medical malpractice thing.
00:05:21.200 We're going to solve medical malpractice.
00:05:22.680 Yeah, yeah.
00:05:23.160 In that section, we read like a brief little excerpt of this, but I just want to read this again.
00:05:28.100 So they're talking about how medical malpractice lawsuits contribute to health care costs.
00:05:33.100 And they say, consider this fact.
00:05:35.600 Both health care customers and taxpayers are now forced to pay for the 85,000 medical malpractice lawsuits that are filed each year.
00:05:43.040 These lawsuits cost a lot of money.
00:05:44.900 Estimates range from $11 billion to $29 billion per year.
00:05:48.360 Exposure to medical malpractice liability has been estimated to account for 5% to 9% of hospital expenditures. 0.98
00:05:54.640 This is the bullshit part.
00:05:55.920 Of course, these particular figures are controversial and may be exaggerated, 0.97
00:06:00.520 but no one doubts that many billions of dollars must be paid each year to buy insurance and fend off liability.
00:06:07.000 This is obviously very different than the Trump example, 1.00
00:06:09.400 but I think this is like an unbelievably corrosive form of bullshit that is fucking everywhere, 0.99
00:06:15.100 where you're basically trying to illustrate a problem, right? The central thesis of this 0.99
00:06:19.880 chapter of their book is that malpractice lawsuits contribute to healthcare costs.
00:06:24.240 And they give you some numbers, right? Oh, it's 11 billion. It's 29 billion. It's five to 9%.
00:06:27.480 And they immediately just caveat it to the point where it's meaningless. They're like, well,
00:06:31.620 these numbers might not be true, but everybody knows that malpractice lawsuits are a huge
00:06:36.600 problem. Right. The focus is the narrative, right? Exactly. I think this is the phenomenon that I was
00:06:40.620 pointing out earlier. And I think this is the one circumstance where Frankfurt's formulation is like
00:06:46.620 spot on. The making an argument in this sort of like roundabout way where like you drop in a fact,
00:06:54.400 you maybe do a little comparison, you give a caveat, you shrug away anything that might
00:07:01.720 prove you wrong. Yeah. And you have not like produced a logical thread that can lead you
00:07:07.240 to the conclusion that you're claiming. And yet you claim it. You wrote a whole chapter of your
00:07:11.760 book about how malpractice lawsuits are a major driver of health care costs. The one place in
00:07:17.920 the entire chapter you actually try to support that you're like, hey, these numbers are probably
00:07:21.860 exaggerated. We don't really know. It's a couple billion out of a four trillion dollars of health
00:07:25.880 care spending economy. Then why the fuck did you write a chapter about this? You can't at the most 0.99
00:07:31.220 basic level right say that this should be a priority there are other issues that are more
00:07:35.800 expensive than this where we do have evidence that they are problems it essentially invalidates 0.83
00:07:40.360 the entire fucking chapter why is this in your book but then they just like move on they're like 0.84
00:07:45.520 well anyway medical malpractice this is how we could do it right but like we see this all the 0.97
00:07:50.220 time in these articles and these books we're just like anyway nobody can really say if this is a 0.90
00:07:55.540 problem but it's a problem right yeah that's a very common form of bullshit and also aligns 0.94
00:08:04.980 with my colloquial understanding of what bullshit is right like when i read a friedman op-ed or 1.00
00:08:11.340 whatever my brain is just screaming at me like this is fucking bullshit so it's nice to have 0.99
00:08:17.440 like a definition that like provides a lens through which you can look at these and be like 1.00
00:08:22.700 yes, I think that this is actually technically bullshit. What are your examples? You said you
00:08:26.940 read some Maureen Dowd. We'll get to the doubt in a second. I have one primary example here. And
00:08:33.360 this is a recent David Brooks column. As soon as we were talking about bullshit, I was like, 0.99
00:08:38.040 I bet Brooks is where this begins and ends for me. You opened a new tab. You're like, Brooks, 0.98
00:08:43.980 give it to me, man. I tell you that I just clicked on his name on the New York Times website
00:08:47.900 and just like chose one of the first of the three columns I saw.
00:08:54.140 I was going to do that with Pamela Paul, but I was like, it's too easy. 0.95
00:08:57.520 It's too, it's too much of a dunk fest if I go back to that fucking well.
00:09:02.140 I do feel like it's mean how quickly I went to the Brooks page 0.91
00:09:06.660 and how quickly I decided on a piece.
00:09:10.080 I was like, this works. 1.00
00:09:11.580 Like the first one I clicked on, I was like, damn, that title looks like bullshit. 1.00
00:09:15.320 Yeah. 1.00
00:09:15.660 Clicked on it.
00:09:16.300 I was like, oh yeah.
00:09:16.960 This is it.
00:09:18.140 It's always a little dismaying when you have a negative expectation about somebody and you're
00:09:22.760 like, oh, I shouldn't like assume the worst.
00:09:24.440 And it's just immediately confirmed.
00:09:26.420 You're like, no, my cynicism was absolutely justified.
00:09:30.000 So this column by David Brooks is called The Power of American Capitalism.
00:09:35.580 OK. 0.99
00:09:36.040 And I think that as we've sort of touched on, this style of op-ed is quintessential bullshit. 0.98
00:09:42.320 in my colloquial understanding of the term 0.97
00:09:45.600 and also, I think, in Frankfurt's formulation.
00:09:50.320 So I'm going to send you the opening paragraph.
00:09:53.140 Okay.
00:09:53.840 He says,
00:09:54.960 The mighty Mississippi rolls on.
00:09:57.340 It's hard to say with Invisalign.
00:09:58.900 If you don't live near it,
00:10:00.040 you might never think of that wide, powerful river.
00:10:03.240 You may associate it with old Mark Twain stories.
00:10:06.100 But every day, 24-7, it rolls on.
00:10:09.100 American capitalism is kind of like that.
00:10:11.940 You can invent fables about how America is in economic decline.
00:10:16.580 You can rail against neoliberalism, but the American economy doesn't care.
00:10:21.700 It just keeps rolling on. 0.97
00:10:23.820 How did you find such a perfect example so fucking quickly? 0.90
00:10:27.580 I'm telling you, it was the first thing I clicked. 0.98
00:10:29.980 It's like, what is he even fucking doing here? 0.92
00:10:33.060 It sounds like the Friedman stuff. 1.00
00:10:35.240 It's just spinning your wheels like you got to get a paragraph out of this shit. 0.98
00:10:38.700 The premise of this is that I think that's supposed to be that the reader forgot about the Mississippi River. 0.99
00:10:45.580 Yeah, we can all forget about the Mississippi the same way we can all forget about capitalism, I guess.
00:10:50.480 So the premise of the piece is that despite the haters and naysayers, American capitalism has continued to be a resounding success.
00:10:59.720 The primary data point here is that America's GDP has continued to increase, which is, of course, true.
00:11:06.160 He points out a handful of other facts.
00:11:09.820 He cites that recent Atlantic piece by Jean Twenge, I guess is how you pronounce it.
00:11:16.280 Oh my God, she's my example. 1.00
00:11:18.160 Oh shit. 1.00
00:11:19.160 You're going to love it, Peter. 1.00
00:11:20.200 I won't dive in, but she says, of course, that households headed by millennials are
00:11:24.400 making more money than previous generations did. 0.99
00:11:27.400 I love that we're fucking both finding exactly the same bullshit. 1.00
00:11:30.580 Millennials are fine. 1.00
00:11:31.700 What's everybody complaining about?
00:11:33.080 Brooks says, quote, I was especially struck by how much America invests in its own people.
00:11:39.320 America spends roughly 37 percent more per student on schooling than the average for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, a collection of mostly rich peer nations.
00:11:54.800 So, OK, so he's sort of sprinkled some facts or fact adjacent things into the column.
00:12:00.260 Yeah, fact-ish.
00:12:01.500 And what they all have in common is that they are, like, relatively disconnected data points, lacking any context, right?
00:12:08.520 Like, investing 37% more in education than peer nations might be a good thing, or it might be a bad thing if it's not effective.
00:12:17.600 Right.
00:12:17.860 And by the way, there's reason to believe it's not effective.
00:12:20.360 Like, our education results are pretty middling. 0.98
00:12:23.060 We also spend way more on health care than other countries, most of which does not actually produce any fucking benefit.
00:12:28.240 And all of these data points are very disconnected from the actual critiques of American capitalism that Brooks is implicitly addressing, right, which he never like tackles directly. He never says this writer makes this critique. And here's why I think that's incorrect, right? He's just sort of gesturing at a left critique that you know is out there somewhere.
00:12:49.580 Right. And then being like, but GDP is high. But like critics of like the neoliberal order are not saying that GDP is declining. They're talking about social mobility and inequality and economic dislocation. And Brooks is like implicitly addressing these broad and nuanced critiques by throwing like a small handful of questionably relevant data points out there as if they were sufficient to debunk those critiques. Right. And then declaring victory.
00:13:18.420 No one wants us to just spend more on education with no regard to how we spend it.
00:13:25.120 We've been shoveling 45% more money into the furnace than every other nation.
00:13:31.020 Right.
00:13:31.480 This is where I think that like Frankfurt really is able to articulate something that I wouldn't have quite put that way without him.
00:13:40.760 Right.
00:13:41.020 He's not quite lying.
00:13:42.520 Right.
00:13:42.980 But his focus is not meaningfully on the truth.
00:13:46.060 Yeah. I also think it's worth pointing out because I think a lot of people enter into the project of like writing a piece or making a podcast with like, I'm going to defend my point of view. There are people who do that and then engage with the other critiques in good faith. They tackle the harder parts of those critiques. Right. And really try to make the case. And I think that's distinct from bullshit, too.
00:14:12.380 I mean, not to get meta, but like, I think that's kind of what we're trying to do on this show. 0.62
00:14:17.140 Yeah.
00:14:17.300 I think we were pretty fair to David Brooks in our David Brooks episode.
00:14:20.980 I was as nice as I could be.
00:14:22.340 Yeah.
00:14:22.780 We only made one research assistant joke.
00:14:24.460 That's right.
00:14:24.920 I feel like that's generous.
00:14:26.060 And it was so subtle that people tried to tell us about the research assistant story.
00:14:31.680 Did you know?
00:14:32.680 People were like, did you know?
00:14:34.140 We're like, guys.
00:14:35.260 That's why I made an extremely weird out of context reference to a research assistant, guys.
00:14:39.840 Yeah, it was just a coincidence that you happened to mention that.
00:14:45.120 I have a Maureen Dowd example.
00:14:48.420 She's like, man, in the same way, you know, there's that like lie tracker of Trump's and it's up to like twelve hundred lies or something. 0.98
00:14:55.780 And like at this point, it would be easier to just count the fucking things he says that are true. 0.96
00:14:59.460 Like that would be a more efficient process with Maureen Dowd. 1.00
00:15:02.420 It's like, what isn't bullshit? 0.99
00:15:04.200 Right. 0.99
00:15:04.600 Like I try to get through her columns to like make fun of them on Twitter. 0.97
00:15:07.960 And like I can't even fucking do it.
00:15:09.420 I'm like, there's nothing here. 0.98
00:15:10.760 Like, I can't, I can't say anything about this because it's just fucking vapor. 1.00
00:15:15.120 No, she is an enormous victory for the feminists. 1.00
00:15:22.380 Speaking of problematic comparisons. 1.00
00:15:24.680 No, no, no.
00:15:25.860 Just listen.
00:15:28.860 You're going to get there.
00:15:29.660 Take me there, Peter. 1.00
00:15:30.500 Everyone always says when we get a really incompetent woman in these positions, that 1.00
00:15:37.960 will be a victory for feminism right like it's not just that you need to have successful female 1.00
00:15:43.200 politicians it's like they should be bumbling fools like the guys are and that will be a sign 1.00
00:15:49.260 of progress in journalism we are to some degree there or at least maureen dowd has a foothold 0.99
00:15:55.260 yeah there's this piece from january titled nancy pelosi liberated and loving it oh my god and it's
00:16:03.480 It's about Nancy Pelosi's transition from being the Speaker of the House to being a regular House member in the minority.
00:16:14.040 Okay.