Everyone has been there before, standing around with a group of friends just talking about whatever comes up. No one really directs the conversation, but rather it flows freely. Of course there are always a couple people in that group of friends that have lavish stories, but you somehow seem to doubt pieces of it. Those people are the professional bullshitters. They however aren’t the only ones who do it. You yourself do it, just probably not on the scale of the professional. This paper is about the topic of bullshit or malarkey and what it means to conversation. Bullshit is a form of communicating and it seems preferable over being direct. This essay seeks to explore the purposes of bullshitting as an accepted form of communication through breakdown of the word “bullshit,” and it’s social uses.
Beginning with what is bullshit is imperative to the rest of the paper. Frankfurt begins with the Oxford English Dictionary for his analysis of the first word “bull.” Frankfurt states the OED’s definition as “an informal conversation or discussion, esp. of a group of males” (Frankfurt 2005:34). Bull sessions are often also used to express feelings about sensitive subjects such as, “ religion, politics, or sex” (Frankfurt 2005:36). They do so with the mindset that in these conversation the general rule is to take nothing seriously, and it is to my belief that they are used for pleasure or to blow off steam. Frankfurt (2005) stated:
Each of the contributors to a bull session relies, in other words, upon a general recognition that what he expresses or says is not to be understood as being what he means wholeheartedly or believes unequivocally to be true. The purpose of the conversation is not to communicate beliefs. Accordi...
... middle of paper ...
...arate things, but closely related: bull is a session of conversation that has no meaning and that whatever is said shall not be taken seriously and shit is essentially nothing but un-crafted non-enriched words that have no importance to the conversation. Combining the two creates a concept of conversation that has no allegiance to the sides of fact or fiction, but instead creates a mode of self promotion. Social competition is fierce and using bullshit to get ahead is common on the playground, because the children use it as socials coins of script. Old men use BS for killing time, companionship and enjoyment. Politicians are the focused on attracting votes from the masses on not select groups. BS is a strategy for social gain, and can be used for multiple purposes.
Works Cited
Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Conversation Analysis (CA) is the study of talk-within-interaction that attempts to describe the orderliness, structure and sequential patterns of interaction in conversation. It is a method of qualitative analysis developed by Harvey Sacks with the aid of Emmanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson in the late 1960s to early 1970s. Using the CA frame of mind to view stories shows us that what we may think to be simplistic relaying of information or entertaining our friends is in fact a highly organised social phenomena that is finely tuned in a way that expresses the teller’s motivation behind the talk. (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2011). It is suggested that CA relies on three main assumptions; talk is a form of social action, action is structurally organised, talk creates and maintains inter-subjectivity (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984).
In their essays both Buckley and Ericsson analyze the different ways we use lies to help and hurt our self in our every day lives, and how this effects American culture. Ericsson shows the way lies can , as she puts it, “ lubricate the daily machinery of living”(128). Buckley, on the other hand uses examples of lies as a way to deny himself; and do exactly the opposite of Ericsson. But they both show how we as Americans use lies these ways and others so much that most of us may not realize it.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York, NY: Viking Press.
In this book Jay Heinrichs demonstrates different ways to master the art of rhetoric, his main intention is to teach us ways into arguing effectively without anger. He does this by providing us with tools and examples throughout the book on how to handle different scenarios of an everyday life. Thank You for Arguing, gives
Notional confrontation cannot be ways of refusing to take part in a conversation. For someone participating in a disagreement, Schafer’s assessor relativism gives two options, either converge upon a belief with your opponent, or refuse to converse with your opponent. Contrarily, Williams’ idea of notional and real confrontation says someone participating in a disagreement can only convert to their opponent’s belief, and they can only do this if and only if conversion is a real option. If there is no real option, then there is no confrontation, or disagreement. Intuitively, there is no other option that one coul...
The basic idea is that when two contrasting worldviews are brought into contact, and result in conflict has to be resolved to solve some problem, this is likely to stimulate some cognitive restructuring – some learning and understanding (Mercer, 1996: 360).
This issue impacts my life in many different ways. First, it makes me pay closer attention to my personal interactions. How am I part of this problem? How much of what Dr. Tannen describes apply to the way I approach dialogue, the way I problem-solve, or the way I consume the news? It will certainly make me an even better listener. Knowing that assumptions are part of any given dialogue, I will be more in-tuned to assumptions underlying any given argument. I am also reminded to pay attention to metaphors. What metaphors are at play? Keeping in mind that "the terms in which we talk about something shape the way we think about it", I am invited to identify the metaphors operating within any discussion, and perhaps more importantly, choose my own words wisely.
Deception exists in media, among prestigious universities, and perhaps most commonly in the workplace. According to Dunleavy (2010), reasons for deception in the workplace include: competitiveness, conflict, or a response to a supervisor or fellow employee (p. 241). Dunleavy develops hypotheses’, conducts experiments, and collects data to determine what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior as it applies to deception in the workplace. Ultimately, the reason for deceiving and the method in which one deceives, through either withholding (omission) or distortion (commission), directly effects the perception of coworkers’ credibility, power, and trustworthiness (Dunleavy, p.241).
‘How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling it a leg doesn’t make it a leg.’ What calling a tail a leg does do, however, is affect our perspective of it. Whether one is inclined to see such a thing, is what decides how many legs we see a dog with, regardless of the actuality. Who we are, and how our perspectives materialise, has a great impact on our reality: the way we see the world, react to events, and make decisions. Often, an objective reality, the way things really are, the four legged canine, gets left behind, worth little in the face of stubborn views and beliefs. The opposite can also be true, with the actuality of a widely accepted reality refusing to lie dormant in the face of beliefs, the truth pushing
“By telling stories, you objectify your own experience. You separate it from yourself. You pin down certain truths. You make up others. You start sometimes with an incident that truly happened, like the night in the shit field, and you carry it forward by inventing incidents that did not in fact occur but that nonetheless help to clarify and explain”
in the topic. Finally, it includes what is at stake for the participant in the context
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). What lies beneath: The linguistic traces of deception in
Modern discussion is a group like nuclear physics, argues William Isaacs. Lots of atoms go fast approximately, numerous of which presently rush history each other but others crash, creating resistance. Still if our minute conversations don't turn controversial, they frequently just dish up to institute each participant's position in the outer space. One guy shares a guide he's privy to, an additional shares a different information, and on and on. Each human being fires off a tidbit, pauses to refill while an important person else talks, then fires off an additional.
“Many people tell me that they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advance, “she” will be more and more like a best friend”(138) .Sherry Turkle is a renowned professor, author, and a media commentator who has been studying media and technology for many years. Often talking to talking to audiences about the dangers that come with engaging in virtual media. In her essay “The Flight from Conversation” Turkle addresses some concerns she has about the impact that technology (our phones primarily) are having on people. Turkle believes that people are abandoning face to face conversations in exchange for telecommunication and is misguided in her assumption.
... understand the other side’s point of view. All parties are able to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, creatively explore and evaluate alternatives, and select solutions to which they are all committed. Though collaborating is the only win-win approach preferred to resolving conflicts in many situations, there is time and place for the other styles as they may better meet the needs of the situation.