[Todos] La diferencia entre mentir y macanear

[fvicent en dm.uba.ar]

El filósofo Harry Frankfurt de Princeton University escribió un ensayo "On
Bullshit". Creo  que para los investigadores es importante entender la
noción de bullshit como instrumento en la publicación de los resultados.
El ensayo original cubre casi 20 paginas lo que es excesivo para personas
ocupadas. Por esa razón, lo he procesado con ASS fijando el parámetro de
longitud a una sola hoja. Con esta drástica restricción estimo que se
ajusta mas al output el título "La diferencia entre mentir y macanear"

start

LYING IS NOT THE SAME AS BULLSHITTING

In Eric Ambler’s novel Dirty Story, a character named Arthur Abdel Simpson
recalls advice that he received as a child from his father:

“Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through.”

This presumes that there is an important difference between lying and
bullshitting, and that the latter is preferable to the former.

The father did not consider bullshitting morally superior to lying. Nor
that he regarded lies as less effective than bullshit.

After all, an intelligently crafted lie may do its work with unqualified
success.

It may be that Simpson thought it easier to get away with bullshitting
than with lying.

Or perhaps he meant that, although the risk of being caught is about the
same in each case, the consequences of being caught are generally less
severe for the bullshitter than for the liar.

In fact, people do tend to be more tolerant of bullshit than of lies,
perhaps because we are less inclined to take the former as a personal
affront. We may seek to distance ourselves from bullshit, but we are more
likely to turn away from it with an impatient or irritated shrug than with
the sense of violation or outrage that lies often inspire.

Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a
particular falsehood at a specific point in a set or system of beliefs, in
order to avoid the consequences of having that point occupied by the
truth. This requires a degree of craftsmanship, in which the teller of the
lie submits to constraints imposed by what he takes to be the truth.

The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a
lie at all, he must think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an
effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that
truth.

On the other hand, a person who undertakes to bullshit his way through has
much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does
not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point,
and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or
intersecting it. He is prepared to fake the context as well, so far as
need requires.

This freedom from the constraints to which the liar must submit does not
necessarily mean, of course, that his task is easier than the task of the
liar. But the mode of creativity upon which it relies is less analytical
and less deliberative than that which is mobilized in lying. It is more
expansive and independent, with more spacious opportunities for
improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of
craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the “bullshit artist.”

My guess is that the recommendation offered by Arthur Simpson’s father
reflects the fact that he was more strongly drawn to this mode of
creativity, regardless of its relative merit or effectiveness, than he was
to the more austere and rigorous demands of lying.

eof

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/articleB5BD6D4417AF444DBD8F9770AA729B26.asp