{"id":12321,"date":"2026-03-27T16:36:22","date_gmt":"2026-03-27T16:36:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/?p=12321"},"modified":"2026-03-27T16:36:22","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T16:36:22","slug":"calling-bs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/?p=12321","title":{"rendered":"Calling BS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n<\/div>\n

By KIM BELLARD<\/p>\n

We are living, you\u2019d have to say, in the age of bullshit. Our politicians can\u2019t answer the simplest of questions without spouting word salad answers aimed at running out the clock until the next question. Our corporations spew endless platitudes about their lofty goals in an attempt to distract us from their mendacious profit-seeking. And now we have AI producing endless volumes of words, an unpredictable amount of which aren\u2019t remotely true.<\/p>\n

For better or worse (and, trust me, it has often been for worse), I\u2019ve always been one to ask \u201cwhy,\u201d to probe vagueness \u2014 whether it was a teacher, a boss, or a politician. Call me cynical, call me skeptical, call me inquisitive, but I have a low tolerance for bullshit, in its many forms. So I was thrilled to see that a new study<\/a> suggests that employees who don\u2019t fall for corporate bullshit may be better employees.<\/p>\n

The study is from Shane Littrell<\/a>, a postdoctoral researcher and cognitive psychologist at Cornell University, whose research \u201cfocuses primarily on how people evaluate and share knowledge, particularly the ways that misleading information (e.g., bullshit, conspiracy theories, corporate messaging) influence people\u2019s beliefs, attitudes, and decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

One wonders what he<\/em> was like as a child.<\/p>\n

His new research introduces a new tool called the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), which was \u201cdesigned to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric.\u201d<\/p>\n

His paper defines \u201cbullshit\u201d as \u201ca type of semantically, logically, or epistemically dubious information that is misleadingly impressive, important, informative, or otherwise engaging,\u201d <\/em>and distinguishes it from other types of speech (such as jargon) in that \u201cit is both functionally misleading <\/em>and epistemically irresponsible<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cCorporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,\u201d said<\/a> Dr. Littrell. \u201cUnlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

For the current research, he developed a \u201ccorporate bullshit generator\u201d that mixes and marches phrases from actual Fortune 500 business leaders to produce \u201cstatements that were syntactically coherent but semantically empty (e.g., \u201cWorking at the intersection of cross-collateralization and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing and end-state vision<\/em>\u201d).\u201d They sound like statements a real person might say and that should have meaning, but are neither.<\/p>\n

He then had study participants evaluate those pseudo-statements versus actual statements, rating the \u201cbusiness savvy\u201d they reflected. As the Cornell press release summarized<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and \u201cvisionary,\u201d but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.<\/p>\n

The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Moreover, those who were more likely to fall for corporate BS were also more likely to spread it.<\/p>\n

E.g., the more gullible sheep probably aren\u2019t the best workers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis creates a concerning cycle,\u201d Dr. Littrell said. \u201cEmployees who are more likely to fall for corporate bullshit may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of negative feedback loop. Rather than a \u2018rising tide lifting all boats,\u2019 a higher level of corporate BS in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dr. Littrell was quick to point out that falling for corporate bullshit is not a function of intelligence, education, or job functions, telling<\/a> Michael Sainato of The Guardian<\/em>: \u201cThis isn\u2019t something that only affects people who are less intelligent. Anybody can fall for bullshit, and we all, depending on the situation, fall for bullshit when it is kind of packaged up to appeal to our biases.\u201d<\/p>\n

Similarly, he told Jessica Stillman, writing in Inc.<\/a>: \u201c\u201cUnfortunately, bullshit and bullshitting are unavoidable. It\u2019s just part of human behavior, especially in competitive environments\u2026If senior executives communicate in \u2018bullshitty\u2019 ways, then everyone else will too. They should normalize clearly defining their terms, focus on shorter, to-the-point sentences, and resist using ambiguous buzzwords.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMost of us, in the right situation, can get taken in by language that sounds sophisticated but isn\u2019t,\u201d Dr. Littrell said<\/a>. \u201cThat\u2019s why, whether you\u2019re an employee or a consumer, it\u2019s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind \u2013\u00a0leaders\u2019 statements, public reports, ads \u2013\u00a0and ask yourself, \u2018What, exactly, is the claim? Does it actually make sense?\u2019 Because when a message leans heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it\u2019s often a red flag that you\u2019re being steered by rhetoric instead of reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ask. That. Question.<\/p>\n

One of my favorite takes on the research was from Rupert Goodwins in The Register<\/em><\/a>, who starts by saying:<\/p>\n

Science is at its best when it makes manifest radical ideas that change our worldview. This is the flag all sane people salute, under which we march to war. Yet in our hearts, we know that the very tastiest science is that which confirms our prejudices and validates what we\u2019ve known all along. Cornell University has just served up a plate of the finest yet. Tuck in.<\/p>\n

He points out the long history of corporate bullshit, especially in tech and consulting, and now made much worse with AI as \u201cprime slime.\u201d Accordingly:<\/p>\n

This is where we call upon the team at Cornell to expand and extend their science beyond the general skewering of business jargon and those who create and consume it, welcome and valuable as it is. The use of the stuff as a diagnostic is great \u2013 now use that as the basis for identifying and dissecting the stuff itself, and the mechanisms by which it affects choices and actions.<\/p>\n

The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale is a great start. Now we need the ABRC, the AI Bullshit Receptivity Scale.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, Dr. Littrell admitted to Ms. Stillman: \u201cThe scale is a promising tool for researchers, but it\u2019s not quite ready yet to be used as a high-stakes screening instrument by private companies. We still need to investigate it more robustly first.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the meantime, if you\u2019ve got troublesome employees who are always asking uncomfortable questions and seeking more clarity on goals, instead of sidelining or even firing them, you may want to consider promoting them. They may be your best employees.<\/p>\n

Kim is a former emarketing exec at a major Blues plan, editor of the late & lamented\u00a0<\/em>Tincture.io<\/em><\/a>, and now regular THCB contributor<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By KIM BELLARD We are living, you\u2019d have to say, in the age of bullshit. Our politicians can\u2019t answer the simplest of questions without spouting word salad answers aimed at running out the clock until the next question. Our corporations spew endless platitudes about their lofty goals in an attempt to distract us from their…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":12320,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12321"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12321\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/12320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medical-article.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}