Brandolini’s Law: The bullshit asymmetry principle or why it is so difficult for us to dismantle a hoax

Brandolini’s Law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, states that “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it .”

In 2013, Italian computer scientist Alberto Brandolini postulated this principle in an attempt to explain what is happening in the world of social networks, media and post-truth in which we live.

However, it can also be applied on a daily basis, in our interpersonal relationships. In fact, it’s why it’s so hard to prove someone wrong or convince them that their ideas have no basis.

Brandolini’s Law also explains why we become so stubborn and defend tooth and nail something that we have seen or heard, but that we have not really verified and that even lacks logic.

Why do lies, fake news and nonsense spread and take root so quickly?

The bullshit asymmetry principle rests largely on the way in which inaccurate or false information is transmitted. Generally those who spread these ideas adopt a pompous air. They resort to extravagant titles, terms and sentences specially designed to hide their insufficiencies, increase their power as a referent and make those who listen or read them doubt themselves and trust the “guru” or “sapient.”

Likewise, these people show great intolerance towards any data that does not confirm their version and try to mask their lack of knowledge or depth with vague terms that trap others in a futile search for a deeper explanation. In short, they are ignorant people who present themselves under a halo of authority with which they attract the others.

However, the spread of lies, fake news, inaccuracies and hoaxes does not depend solely on the person who believes them, other factors also come into play. In “La démocratie des credules”, Gerald Bronner made reference to how the Internet acts as an amplifier of the vaguest and most far-fetched theories. This French sociologist identified what we could consider as the main means that facilitate the spread and consolidation of these hoaxes, which are at the same time the obstacles that we must face to unmask them, both in the online world and in life.

1. Impact asymmetry. The wide dissemination that a rumor, lie or fake news can have guarantees a much greater impact than any subsequent retraction. In many cases, these types of ideas have been launched precisely with the objective of making an emotional impact, regardless of the truth, which guarantees that they spread like wildfire. On the other hand, the amendment or rectification does not usually attract as much attention because it is not so striking, so once the deception is sown, it is necessary to make a lot of effort to deny it because a large number of people will believe in it.
2. Memory retention asymmetry. The imprint that a lie, defamation or rumor leaves in memory is usually much deeper than any information that later denies it. Given its emotional impact and the primacy effect, we tend to pay more attention to the first thing we hear. In fact, research conducted at Harvard University, for example, confirmed that we tend to prefer things that are shown to us first.
3. Asymmetry of charisma. Bronner maintains that anyone who spreads nonsense, lies or fake news without any basis in fact is surrounded by an advantageous aura, while anyone who tries to reason with people is often perceived as a spoilsport. Unfortunately, it is easier to believe and follow someone who claims that you can transform your life just by wanting it, than someone who explains that you must work hard and carry out a profound exercise of inner transformation. Our brain tends to save energy, so it tends to prefer simple, impactful statements rather than getting involved with complex theories that explain how the world really works.  

We can see that rational thinking and information based on facts start with a clear disadvantage compared to the popular arguments and emotional positions that swarm in the current space of public opinion and that, therefore, also extend their tentacles to our homes.

The psychological basis of Brandolini’s Law

Mired in post-truth, reality is distorted to measure to manipulate the beliefs and emotions of the masses with the aim of influencing their opinion, decisions and behaviors. In a world where opinions outweigh reason and facts, more and more people communicate with little or no regard for truth, evidence, logic and common sense.

Generally these people rely on emotions and resort to rhetorical strategies designed to ignore facts and established knowledge. They do not hesitate to take facts out of context, manipulate or distort them to support the most absurd positions.

Of course, anyone who has a critical spirit and does a little research will be able to spot deception or manipulation. But unfortunately, we believe more and more and think less and less.

Our confirmation bias doesn’t make it easy for us either.

Not only do we tend to look for information that confirms our beliefs, but we will analyze it through that prism and prioritize it in our memory. That explains why it is so difficult to deny nonsense, gossip or conjectures without any scientific or real basis. Once they are planted in our minds, it is difficult to eradicate them, as is the case with weeds.

On the other hand, neuroscientists at the University of Southern California found that our brain reacts with pain to the cognitive dissonance we experience when we are presented with information contrary to our most deeply held beliefs. That means that to protect our ego and avoid that suffering, there are times when we prefer to continue believing in fake news, rather than accept that we were manipulated or deceived – and that we were wrong.

How to counteract Brandolini’s Law?

1. Choose your battles. Dismantling baseless ideas and uncovering deceptions is important, but we must do it intelligently. Mark Twain advised: “Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.” Before launching into an argument, it is better to weigh the possibilities of reaching an understanding. Is the other person willing to listen? If you think you are going to have a deaf discussion, it would be better not to even start it or to make your position clear without entering into disquisitions.
2. Don’t lose focus. Franklin Pierce had noted that “Often the more trivial the subject, the more lively and prolonged the discussion.” Therefore, try to keep yourself focused on the issue at hand. People who resort to lies or unconfirmed facts often use the “avalanche method”; That is, they launch a bunch of disjointed and inconsistent arguments to confuse the others. Don’t let them go on because they will try to take you into areas you don’t master to attack your credibility with ad hominem “arguments.”
3. Stick to the facts. Those who distort and manipulate reality do not hesitate to resort to vague and general statements to support their theories. Don’t fall into their game. Don’t let your ego get involved in the discussion. Remember that you don’t have to win, just show the facts, so stick to them. Ultimately, the goal is not for others to believe you, as they once believed someone else, but to stimulate their critical thinking so that they can challenge ideas from a more sensible and informed position.

In any case, remember that if the energy necessary to combat fake news or stupidities is greater than that used to generate them, it is smarter to reserve it for spaces where the facts you contribute have a certain value and your intervention has a greater impact or with people that they really show themselves willing to listen and dialogue in a mature and logical way.

References:

Petrocelli, J. (2021) Bullshitting and persuasion: The persuasiveness of a disregard for the truth. British Journal of Social Psychology; (60): 1464–1483. 

Kaplan, J. T. et. Al. (2016) Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports; 6: 39589.

Bronner, G. (2013) La démocratie des crédules. París: Presses Universitaires de France.

Carney, D. R. & Banaji, M. R. (2012) First Is Best. PLoS ONE; 7(6).