ISSN: 1756–5839 (print)

writing & pedagogy ISSN: 1756–5847 (online)

Article

Should we teach students how to bullshit?

Peter J. McEacherna and Robert W. McEachernb

Abstract
Bullshit, as defined by Frankfurt (2005, p. 10), is language that is “disconnected from
a concern for the truth.” Much scholarship shows that bullshit is a prominent feature
in organizations that is difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of (e.g., McCarthy et al.,
2020; Penny, 2010). Bullshit, by definition and by cultural practice, seems antitheti-
cal to business writing orthodoxy. As Thill and Bovée (2020) suggest in a representa-
tive textbook, communication should be clear and ethical. However, Spicer (2020)
codifies bullshit as a social practice whose outcomes are not always dire. Well-crafted
bullshit benefits its users, allowing them to “fit into a speech community, get things
done in day-to-day interaction and bolster their image and identity” (Spicer, 2020,
p. 20). Contrasting with business writing’s abstinence-only bullshit stance, this sug-
gests that successful writers must adapt to their organization’s speech act practices.
In this article, we argue that students must be taught about bullshit. After describing
bullshit and its role in organizations, we show how business writing could incorpo-
rate a critically informed approach to bullshit in undergraduate courses, internship
preparation courses, and other curricular instances in which students work directly
with organizations. While bullshitting should not be outright encouraged, continued
ignorance will do nothing to solve its associated problems. Promoting bullshit lit-
eracy, however, could both minimize bullshit’s harms and maximize its benefits. We
close by describing how this approach could foster critical thinking skills, promote
more seamless adaptation to organizational cultures and communication practices,
and perhaps even improve mental health outcomes.

KEYWORDS: BUSINESS WRITING, BULLSHIT, BULLSHITOLOGY

a
George Mason University
email: pmceach@gmu.edu
b
Southern Connecticut State University
email: mceachernr1@southernct.edu

Submitted: 2021-12-07 Accepted: 2022-03-12

WAP VOL 14.2 2022 163–182

© 2022, EQUINOX PUBLISHING https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.21554 www.equinoxpub.com
164 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

Introduction

A basic tenet of business writing has been that it should be written in “plain
style” and include some variation of the 3 C’s: clarity, conciseness, and con-
versational tone. These stylistic choices result in easier reading for one’s
audience, greater likelihood of one’s message being received, and increased
credibility. Hagge (1989) argued that plain style in business correspondence
is at least 2000 years old: “Many of the leading stylistic principles of the
ancient epistolographic tradition are claimed as fundamental maxims for
the field of business communication” (p. 39). Such ancient principles guide
contemporary business writing, as espoused in college textbooks. Thill
and Bovée’s (2020) Excellence in Business Communication is an instructive
example. The textbook’s readers are encouraged to practice all three of the
“C’s.” They should “create a conversational tone” by using “plain language
that sounds businesslike without being stuffy at one extreme or too laid back
and informal at the other extreme” (p. 163). Similarly, they should learn to
edit for clarity and conciseness, ensuring that “every sentence conveys the
message [they] intend and that readers can extract that meaning without
needing to read it more than once” (p. 196), while eliminating unnecessary
words since “readers appreciate conciseness and are more likely to read
[their] documents if [they] have a reputation for efficient writing” (p. 197).
The overall goal is to create a document that is easy to read and that also
creates an image of a writer who is knowledgeable and cares about readers.
While there has been a dearth of research on style in business writing for
roughly 20 years, studies of communication in business-related disciplines
typically begin with the assumption that writing should be clear and easy to
read (Montes & Nicolay, 2017; Phetxumphou et al., 2016; Wutscher et al.,
2016), particularly as communication with intercultural workplace audi-
ences becomes more common (Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010; Liu et al.,
2010). Even in studies that show that ambiguity might be valuable strategi-
cally (Gulbrandsen, 2019), such deliberate lack of clarity is still described
as the “dark side” of business communication (Dulek & Campbell, 2015).
Clear, concise, ethical communication is the norm in the discipline.
The opposite of this writing style is often referred to colloquially as
“bullshit.” Bernoff (2016) described bullshit in business writing as more
or less the opposite of the 3 C’s: “Your inbox is full of irrelevant, poorly
written crap. Your boss talks in jargon and clichés. The websites you read
are impenetrable and incomprehensible” (p. 3). He offered advice that is
similar to Thill and Bovée’s (2020), and suggested that business writers
eliminate unnecessary words and jargon, be more direct, and use shorter
sentences. However frustrating communication teachers may find this
flowery, confusing, and empty language, they cannot deny its prevalence
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 165

(Alvesson, 2013; Penny, 2010; Spicer, 2017). Clearly, if unfortunately,

bullshit occupies an influential place in business communication and cul-
ture. It is so influential, in fact, that an entire interdisciplinary academic
subfield – Bullshitology – has emerged to formalize the phenomenon’s
study (e.g., Frankfurt, 2005; Graeber, 2018; Pennycook et al., 2015; Spicer,
2020; Wakeham, 2017). Yet, as far as we can tell, business writing pedagogy
largely ignores the knowledge these scholars have generated.
In this essay, we will argue that teaching students not to bullshit and not
helping them to understand what bullshit is, does them a disservice. While
writing that adheres to the three C’s is clearly important, we will show that
recognizing what the opposite of this goal looks like and understanding
why it is so pervasive is essential to business writing students’ future career
success. First, we will summarize the business bullshit literature, showing
that today’s workplaces would be more or less unable to function without
it. Next, we will provide a rough sketch of what a bullshit literacy edu-
cational unit might look like, including resources to provide to students
and connections to be made to their own experiences. We will close with
a discussion of the implications of formally teaching bullshit, where we
will outline both individual (e.g., career success) and collective (e.g., fairer
employment relationships) benefits of bullshit literacy. Though bullshit les-
sons may be seen as overly risky or irreverent, they have become essential.
Not only is business bullshit nearly impossible to get rid of (McCarthy et
al., 2020), it proliferates due to a lack of its acknowledgement as bullshit as
much, if not more so, than through deliberate use (Cassam, 2018). As such,
educating future business writers about bullshit, so that they can recognize
why it exists and what it affects, is the best way to mitigate its harms and
maximize its benefits to both individuals and organizations, if not its use
outright.

Bullshitology

In the academic sense, bullshit is language that serves to mislead without

directly addressing the truth, unlike lies (Frankfurt, 2005). Often, this lan-
guage can be benign or even beneficial to both bullshitter and bullshittee
(Sausdal, 2020; Spicer, 2017; Wakeham, 2017). For example, telling a doctor
that one is a vaccine skeptic, when this is not the case, is a lie. Facetiously
speaking like a vaccine skeptic without directly labeling oneself as such
(e.g., by asking one’s doctor when after a shot one can expect to develop
autism, a common but unfounded concern of vaccine skeptics) is bullshit-
ting. This performative, expressive, or artisanal bullshit is meant to facili-
tate social cohesion via the parties’ shared understanding of its emptiness.
At worst, it produces awkwardness if this understanding is not shared (as
166 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

was the case with the first author and his poor doctor in the above, real-life
example). However, other manifestations of bullshit produce more com-
plex results, particularly in the domain of work.
Business bullshit frequently takes the form of “unclarifiable unclarity”
– language that might sound appealing or attractive to bullshittees, but
whose meaning cannot readily be deciphered (Cohen, 2006, p. 343). This is
the sort of bullshit that pervades today’s workplaces, to the point that they
might be unrecognizable without it (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et
al., 2020; Spicer, 2013, 2017, 2020). While not always bullshit, words and
phrases like “value-added,” “dynamic,” “synergy,” or “positivity,” on closer
inspection, often mean absolutely nothing. Rather than jargon, which,
while difficult for those unfamiliar to decipher, facilitates substantive infor-
mation exchange, language like this is nothing more than empty embel-
lishment. It is not, however, without purpose. Workplace bullshit is best
thought of as a social practice that serves to reinforce organizational struc-
tures and relationships (Christensen et al., 2019; Graeber, 2018; Spicer,
2020). Much scholarship in the Bullshitology field is devoted to explaining
why this is the case.

Where Did All This Bullshit Come From?

Lab experiments have identified two conditions that facilitate the prolifera-
tion of bullshit: lack of functional knowledge and lack of social account-
ability (Petrocelli, 2018). The first of these is social pressure to speak about
a topic about which the speaker lacks much functional knowledge. A work-
ing world where attractive images are more important to material success
than such knowledge, often dubbed the economy of persuasion, produces
this condition on a large scale (Alvesson, 2013; Alvesson & Spicer, 2012;
Bal & Docí, 2018; Penny, 2010). Indeed, much of a manager’s job consists
of legitimizing their organization’s goals and their own authority in their
subordinates’ eyes; acquiring task knowledge in these scenarios is unneces-
sary (Christensen et al., 2019). All managers need to do, in many instances,
is keep their subordinates motivated and productive. Bullshitting is far less
energy-intensive than acquiring substantive task knowledge or crafting
thoughtful messages, which may not even be possible given the time and
information constraints managers themselves face. It also can help to avoid
conflicts. Christensen and coworkers note that bullshit language helps
reduce tensions between organizations’ authoritarian structures (see also
Anderson, 2019) and employees’ often egalitarian sentiments. For example,
instead of telling a subordinate they are required to come to work the next
day when it was supposed to be their day off (which employers in many US
states are allowed to do; Lambert, 2008), a manager might say something
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 167

like “If you could come in tomorrow, that’d be great.” It is implied that com-
ing is a requirement, but it is couched in language that makes it seem like
a choice. Yet, the subordinate in this case may know that failure to comply
will result in negative consequences.
The second condition shown in experiments to facilitate bullshit was a
lack of social accountability for its production (Petrocelli, 2018). Potential
bullshitters are more comfortable bullshitting when they are confident that
they will not be outed as such. Successful bullshitters need not even con-
cern themselves with the veracity of their statements so long as their audi-
ence accepts them, whether passively or actively (Cassam, 2018; Frankfurt,
2005). In fact, lack of accountability is probably the primary cause of busi-
ness bullshit’s proliferation (McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2020). The fac-
tors underlying the issue are complex.

Traits of Bullshittees

Some of the most provocative research on bullshit’s spread examines the

traits of bullshittees through the construct of pseudo-profound bullshit
(PPBS) receptivity (Bainbridge et al., 2019; Gligorić & Vilotijević, 2020;
Nilsson et al., 2019; Pennycook et al., 2015; Pfattheicher & Schindler, 2016;
Sterling et al., 2016). In this research, participants were tasked with rat-
ing the profundity of a series of statements – some AI-generated, others
taken from alternative medicine advocate Deepak Chopra’s Twitter feed
– that are completely meaningless, but meant to sound meaningful (e.g.,
“hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; Pennycook et
al., 2015, p. 549). Higher profundity ratings were taken to correspond to
greater acceptance of PPBS as authentic and meaningful. The main predic-
tor of bullshit receptivity is low capacity for analytical thinking (Pennycook
et al., 2015). Follow-up studies, while mixed in their results and generally
finding small effects, suggest overall that neoliberal, pro-free market ideol-
ogy may predict PPBS receptivity as well (Nilsson et al., 2019; Pfattheicher
& Schindler, 2016; Sterling et al., 2019). Indeed, some attribute the rise
of business bullshit to the neoliberal capitalism itself (e.g., du Plessis &
Vandeskog, 2020). However, situational context seems to be more impor-
tant than ideology; attributing a PPBS statement to a made-up author and/
or embedding it in a vignette showed sizable effects on profundity ratings
(Gligorić & Vilotijević, 2020). Accountability for bullshit – or lack thereof
– cannot be understood without examining aspects of the bullshitter and
other contextual variables.
168 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

Traits of Bullshitters

Another line of research examines the traits of bullshitters themselves, but

also affirms the idea that bullshit cannot be divorced from the social con-
text in which it is produced. Bullshitting ability, as rated by a group of
research assistants in an experimental study, showed a positive relationship
with intelligence and was suggested to be a proxy for social skills (Turpin
et al., 2021). On the other hand, bullshitting frequency correlated nega-
tively with intelligence, honesty, and sincerity (Littrell et al., 2020). Still,
a study of nearly 63,000 school-age adolescents across nine Anglophone
countries (Jerrim et al., 2019) suggests that frequency may be more impor-
tant than ability if individual success is the goal. Not only did the most
frequent bullshitters tend to be more confident, feel more popular among
their peers, and answer questions in a socially desirable manner, they were
likely to be high-socioeconomic status (SES), native-born (as opposed to
immigrant), and male. Indeed, one explanation put forward for the exis-
tence of the so-called glass ceiling – the difficult-to-remedy gender dis-
parity in promotions to leadership positions in many workplaces – is that
confidence is more important than competence in the eyes of those evalu-
ating potential leaders, and men are socialized to project confidence more
readily than women (Reuben et al., 2012). Taken together, this evidence
suggests that bullshit is not just some unfortunate, random artifact of a
communication-dense environment, but a tool of the successful and pow-
erful. Simply assessing individual differences of the bullshitter and bullshit-
tee is inadequate.
Bullshit is insidious because targets’ understanding of its true nature
says little about whether they will actually put a stop to it. Though imme-
diate, public negation (i.e., calling bullshit) is touted as the most desir-
able possible reaction, ignorance, egging on, or exiting the organization
entirely are also options for bullshittees, and arguably more frequently
utilized (McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2020). These reactions are influ-
enced by power dynamics and other social contexts rather than by mere
understanding of a piece of communication’s bullshit nature. For exam-
ple, though not quite the same as bullshit communication, Graeber (2018)
argued that as many as half of all jobs are what he called bullshit jobs: point-
less positions that need not exist and add nothing to society or even their
organizations. The psychological consequences of holding a bullshit job are
devastating (especially for those who lack power in their workplaces) and
getting rid of these jobs would at worst have no impact on organizations
or society (e.g., personal assistants for those whose workloads are perfectly
manageable without them, or computer programmers fixing problems
that could have been avoided to begin with through better communication
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 169

between departments). Yet, employment’s essentiality to the satisfaction of

basic needs, not to mention other within-organization power dynamics,
prevent bullshit jobholders from doing much of anything to change their
circumstance short of leaving the organization entirely, which of course is
often unrealistic or impossible. Like any other form of workplace bullshit,
bullshit jobs reinforce relationships and organizational structures in an
advantageous way for those with the most influence.
Often, the power dynamics of bullshit are more subtle, but still oper-
ate according to similar principles. Wakeham (2017) argues that workplace
bullshit proliferates simply due to power held over the spread of informa-
tion. Because most individuals do not get information firsthand, the source
is more important than the information itself. The most influential indi-
viduals in organizations have the most control over information’s dissemi-
nation. Different frames or interpretations of events or messages might be
held by less powerful others, but if such frames lack influence on an orga-
nization’s actions, this functionally does not matter. This is why organi-
zational communications so infrequently reflect employees’ actual reality.
Public negation of business bullshit, or any other organizational communi-
cation practice, can entail negative consequences, whether social or mate-
rial (Bailey et al., 2017; Spicer, 2020). This may also explain why bullshit
thrives in times of organizational change, ambiguity, or crisis (du Plessis &
Vandeskog, 2020; McCarthy et al., 2020; Wakeham, 2017). In such condi-
tions, bullshittees are even less likely to possess the situational knowledge
to help them evaluate potential bullshit statements or the power to resist
negation’s undesirable consequences, which themselves are less predict-
able than usual in these scenarios.
Putting up with bullshit is not only about avoiding the undesirable, how-
ever. Because bullshit is the language of the influential, those looking to
succeed within an organization must utilize it appropriately (Spicer, 2020).
Shared endorsement of bullshit can motivate those in an organization,
empty and damaging though it may be (Spicer, 2013). This might explain
the existence of mission statements and other ostensibly pointless business
communications (Spicer, 2017). At an individual level, skilled bullshitting
reflects an adaptive, nuanced understanding of social context and creates
the appearance of intelligence to bullshittees (Turpin et al., 2021). A third
source of lack of negation might be mere apathy, as the difficulty of negat-
ing business bullshit can elicit disengagement in bullshittees (du Plessis
& Vandeskog, 2020; Spicer, 2013). Bullshit not negated creates a feedback
loop: it becomes ingrained in an organization’s culture, leading to disen-
gagement and disincentivizing negation, further reinforcing power dynam-
ics and ingraining the bullshit in the organization’s culture, and so on.
170 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

To summarize, business and bullshit are hopelessly intertwined.

Bullshit is both a means of control and a ticket to power and success.
In limited quantities, it is beneficial for the social cohesion it facilitates
both in interpersonal interactions and at the broader organizational level.
However, on a larger scale, and given enough time, it is devastating to
individuals and organizations. Thus, we contend that encouraging business
writing students not to bullshit without helping them to understand it is
akin to abstinence-only sexual or drug education, both of which at best do
nothing to reduce the outcomes they seek to eliminate (e.g., Stanger-Hall
& Hall, 2011; West & O’Neal, 2004). Bullshit literacy is essential to career
success for these students, whether they wish to take advantage of it or
work to eliminate it. The remainder of this paper will thus discuss what a
bullshit literacy unit might look like, the implications of teaching students
to bullshit, and how to encourage them to use this essential knowledge
ethically.

The Case for Student Bullshit Literacy

Given bullshit’s ubiquity in the workplace, it should come as no surprise

that students already know how to bullshit. As early as high school, they
do so regularly in their academic writing assignments (Smagorinsky et al.,
2010), and may be taught to further refine their bullshitting abilities in
first-year college composition courses (Eubanks & Schaeffer, 2008). What
students – particularly those at the public universities where we work –
lack, though, is a formal understanding of workplace bullshit and its role
in reinforcing business cultures and relationships. In terms of the teaching
of writing, the issue becomes not solely about teaching students how writ-
ing should be done in the workplace – that is, teaching them to write clear,
concise prose in plain English. Rather, the issue becomes, should we teach
students how writing actually is done – that is, with a large dose of bullshit?
Because business bullshit exists in the world, but not in textbooks, stu-
dents are not as prepared as they should be to recognize and engage with
bullshit as they enter the workplace. This means, ideally, they should have
some introduction to bullshit before graduation, or before an internship,
co-op, service-learning assignment, or other experiential learning oppor-
tunity that involves direct work for a business, especially one in a corpo-
rate environment. We envision such preparation for bullshit as a discreet
learning unit. The unit might take place in a Business Writing class (which
is often attractive to students who plan careers in corporate settings), or as
part of a course preparing students for, or taught simultaneously with, an
internship. What follows is a rough sketch of what a bullshit literacy unit
might look like.
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 171

Teaching Students to Bullshit

First, students must be made aware that bullshit exists. While they likely
know how to bullshit, as they have done so in social and academic settings
their wholes lives, many students, particularly those of lower socioeco-
nomic backgrounds, have little direct experience with the kind of office-
based, corporate bullshit that they might be exposed to in an experiential
setting (Graeber, 2018). Several of the articles we cite here would make
excellent texts for this unit, beginning with Frankfurt’s (2005) seminal
explanation of the bullshit/lies distinction and Cohen’s (2006) descrip-
tion of unclarifiable unclarity. McCarthy and coworkers (2020) produced
a concise guide (the “CRAP Framework”; p. 256) for mitigating bullshit in
organizations. Spicer’s (2017) book Business Bullshit is filled with detailed,
real-life examples of workplace bullshit and also contains advice for com-
bating it. Sources analyzing the social conditions behind business bullshit’s
rise, particularly Penny’s (2010) book Your Call is Important to Us, may
also be useful.
Ultimately, though, the most effective bullshit education would likely
come from connections to students’ own lives, highlighting the bullshit
that they themselves are likely to encounter if they have not already (e.g.,
mission statements or employee training materials). Humor is one of the
best ways to combat business bullshit (Spicer, 2017). Per Spicer’s recom-
mendation, students would likely enjoy the free online Corporate Bullshit
Generator (atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html), which allows users to ran-
domly generate or manufacture their own business bullshit phrases and
even invites use of the phrases in their next meeting or presentation (we
will of course discourage this). Another excellent source is the well-known
television series The Office. For example, when Dunder Mifflin, the paper
company that serves as the setting for the workplace sitcom, is sold to the
printer company Sabre, the parent company requires all its new employees
to watch a training video. The video, hosted by actor Christian Slater, play-
ing himself, includes this introduction to the company, spoken by Slater
as he moves throughout the corporate parent’s headquarters and campus:
So you’ve just been bought by Sabre.
You’ve probably got a lot of questions.
Hi. I’m Christian Slater.
What’s it like to work for Sabre?
Let’s find out together.
Working at Sabre means taking on the challenge of the road that rises to
meet you.
Sabre, respecting the past, but opening the window to the future.
Have you ever tasted a rainbow?
At Sabre, you will.
172 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

[The video then cuts to the company’s CEO, Jo Bennett.]

You’ll find it easy to embrace the Sabre spirit.
Welcome.
We’re very excited to go on this journey with you. (Celotta, 2010)
While The Office is meant as a parody of office life, several scholars have
specifically noted its usefulness in teaching students organizational com-
munication concepts (Franzini, 2007; Lipford & Rood, 2020; Meluch &
Gettings, 2019), suggesting that its use of bullshit is not far from actual
workplace language. Many students are likely to have some familiarity with
The Office, either by watching it directly, or by seeing one of the hundreds
of memes based on the show that have been created and shared online.
Clips from the show are readily available, offering examples of parodic (or
perhaps not parodic) office-based bullshit.
Students may not have held office-based corporate jobs before gradua-
tion, but chances are very good that at least some of them have held non-
office jobs for large corporations: fast food or quick service restaurants,
clothing retailer chains, or the like. With that experience has come their
own exposure to bullshit in some form. As the second author works on this
article, his child has been studying training materials for a summer job at
a corporate fast-food restaurant. They have shared examples of bullshit,
centered around community-building, customer service, and individual
worker responsibility in increasing profits – the kinds of “client-facing,”
image-conscious situations where workplace bullshit thrives, and which
college students are likely to have some experience with. A useful exercise,
then, would be to ask students to find examples from their own experience
and bring them to class or meetings.
Online sources may provide a third source of examples of bullshit. As
the ubiquitous Office bullshit memes might suggest, social media platforms
of all types are teeming with examples of business bullshit, shared by those
who have consumed it (and often resisted it). Reddit, Twitter, and Tumblr
all have spaces that allow members of their communities to post and com-
ment on shared experiences with business bullshit.
While sharing examples of bullshit is an entertaining exercise, and one
that is likely to reveal commonalities of experience for many students, an
important next step is helping students understand what is not bullshit.
Students often exhibit a tendency to reject any language that is difficult to
understand, labeling it bullshit. However, opacity does not always equal
bullshit, and the ability to distinguish bullshit from meaning-bearing lan-
guage would be a crucial objective of this unit. One way to accomplish
this might be to offer examples of corporate language (from real life, not a
humorous bullshit generator). An excerpt from a trade journal, for exam-
ple, might suffice, such as this language from an article’s abstract:
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 173

There is considerable interest in the impact of investor attention on invest-

ment returns, especially for cryptocurrencies. However, previous research
does not distinguish between search-engine attention and social-media
forms of attention – even though this distinction is emphasized by mar-
keting professionals. Professional marketers emphasize that attention is
optimized by combinations of social-media and search-engine presence.
We investigate the bi-directional causalities, and concomitant frequencies,
between cryptocurrency returns and investor attention, comparing crypto-
currency sensitivity to Twitter tweets and the intensity of Google searches,
as well as combinations of Twitter and Google. For 27 cryptocurrencies, we
use a non-parametric wavelet Granger causality test to incorporate multiple
time horizons. (Li et al., 2021)
While jargon-filled, this is not bullshit. To show the difference, students
might be asked to “translate” the excerpt, drawing on their knowledge of
disciplinary jargon (if appropriate) and any research they may need to per-
form. Non-bullshit should be translatable, with students able to explain
(if imperfectly) the concrete ideas behind the jargon. Bullshit (such as the
rainbow-tasting and self-elevating roads of inspiration from The Office)
will result only in the unclarifiable unclarity that resists true understanding
(Cohen, 2006), rather than the kind of substantive information exchange
that jargon can facilitate (Graeber, 2018; Spicer, 2020).
Context often dictates whether language is meaningful or bullshit
(Gligorić & Vilotijević, 2020). Thus, in all provided examples, context clues
should be highlighted and analyzed whenever possible. To return to the
above example, discourse on cryptocurrency, like any surrounding an
emerging and poorly-understood phenomenon or technology, is quite vul-
nerable to bullshit (cf. Janik & Jensen, 2011). Because individuals cannot
evaluate all information firsthand with the amount of knowledge required
to properly do so (Wakeham, 2017), learning to assess the credibility and
motives behind various information sources would also be crucial to a
bullshit literacy unit. A trade journal could propagate bullshit, but it is far
less likely to do so than a random blog post or an eccentric billionaire’s
late-night comedy show monologue. In workplaces, a manager tasked with
keeping subordinates, superiors, and clients happy will seek to do so in the
most efficient and conflict-reducing way possible. Complex though bullshit
is, it should not take too many examples (whether from outside sources or
students’ own experiences) for students to fully grasp the idea of bullshit
and to be able to recognize and distinguish it on their own. Ferreira et al.
(2022) offer a useful “Organizational Bullshit Perception Scale” that could
help begin conversations related to these important contexts.
A final exercise in this unit would be to discuss the implications of
bullshit, introducing readings that discuss the workplace benefits and
drawbacks. Power dynamics often dictate whether bullshit is harmless and
174 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

performative or more nefarious, so significant energy should be devoted

to helping students understand these distinctions, especially since many
will be seeking careers that will require them to communicate on behalf
of other parties who will likely hold some measure of authority over them.
Christensen and coworkers’ (2019) analysis of bullshit in organizations
would be particularly helpful for discussing the functions of workplace
bullshit, as they succinctly highlight both its task- and relationship-oriented
functions. Readings and discussion on bullshit as a social practice would be
useful for their nuanced perspectives (Spicer, 2020; Wakeham, 2017), show-
ing that bullshit and business are inseparable even as the former can harm
the latter. To help students further understand bullshit’s pervasiveness, we
would also recommend discussion of Brandolini’s Law (Brandolini, 2014).
This holds that negation or explanation of bullshit requires an amount of
energy an order of magnitude greater than its production. Though this
tenet has not been validated by empirical research, we think the need to
develop an entire educational unit to adequately explain communication
that takes mere seconds to produce is telling. Moreover, students can easily
test Brandolini’s law on their own by identifying and unpacking their own
examples of bullshit. If nothing else, the critical thinking encouraged by
such an exercise would be invaluable.

The Problems of Producing (Not Just Consuming) Bullshit

At the end of the unit, students should have at least a basic understanding
of what bullshit is, how and why it is produced, and why it is everywhere.
As they continue in their experiential learning opportunity and encounter
more language, they will ideally learn on their own to distinguish between
bullshit and meaning-bearing language like disciplinary jargon.
At some point, however, they may be required to contribute to the con-
versation. One important function of bullshit, after all, is to create and
foster community; it is a social practice that primarily serves to reinforce
organizational structures and relationships (Graeber, 2018; Spicer, 2020).
While we are arguing that there is substantial benefit to students in teach-
ing them how to recognize bullshit, there may come a time (even during
their experiential learning opportunity) that they will have to produce or
reproduce bullshit, to show that they are part of a community. And so,
students may be greeted with an ethical dilemma: do they use the language
of bullshit even if they know it is bullshit? By accepting the bullshit, and
perhaps even creating some of their own, are they perpetuating the sys-
temic use of unclarifiable unclarity? Are they violating the very principles
of clear, coherent language in plain English that we spent so much time
reinforcing in our Business Writing classes?
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 175

We cannot offer a simple solution. However, we can turn to Eubanks and

Shaeffer (2007) for some guidance. They wrestled with the same dilemma
in discussing academic bullshit, particularly in the context of first-year col-
lege writing. They ask, if much of academic discourse is (real or perceived)
bullshit, are we simply rewarding an imprecise, ineffective use of language
in our composition classes? In considering this dilemma, they offer an
example that is appropriate for our argument, that of a salesperson. Citing
Ong (1981), they considered the ludic implications of a sales situation, one
which has its own rhetorical rules apart from “real world” considerations.
An experienced consumer will approach a conversation with a salesperson
with the understanding that there will be some exaggeration about the pos-
itives of the thing being sold. Likewise, the salesperson will expect some
questions and objections from the customer, providing an opportunity to
demonstrate knowledge. The result is a kind of game, with bullshit being an
important (and expected) component.
In much the same way, students are encouraged to learn “genre knowl-
edge” about their workplace, and to eventually “develop an identity within
a discourse community” (Eubanks & Shaeffer, 2007, p. 395). Identifying
and consuming bullshit (knowledge) is only part of that game; reproduc-
ing, and perhaps producing bullshit (developing an identity within the
community) is the other part. In other words, bullshit will always exist,
whether students are taught about it or not. The ethical decision might be
to teach them how to be effective within the bullshit game, while stressing
the use of clear and coherent language whenever possible. Business writing
educators can and should implore students to do what they can to change
or dismantle the bullshit game, but such efforts cannot be made without
first understanding the rules.
While we believe bullshit literacy education stands to benefit the field
broadly, there should be myriad benefits to students of these lessons as
well. To close this paper, we will describe four: critical thinking, soft (inter-
personal) skills, improved mental health outcomes, and fairer employment
relationships.

Additional Benefits of Bullshit Literacy

Improved Critical Thinking and Interpersonal Skills

From one (incomplete) perspective, bullshit receptivity, and thus its spread,
is a product of poor analytical thinking skills (e.g., Pennycook et al., 2015).
While anecdotal, an original impetus for writing this paper was the frus-
tration that both of us authors, and many of those with whom we have
worked, have experienced at the relative dearth of critical thinking skills
176 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

displayed by their business writing students. Even with the first author
being a graduate student with only limited teaching experience, we can
both recount numerous examples of our students reproducing business
bullshit in their various assignments without any awareness they are doing
so. Ideally, bullshit literacy education would improve understanding not
only of the context and motives behind bullshit, but the different sorts of
impact students themselves can have by using bullshit or non-bullshit lan-
guage in their own writing. Just what these impacts are will depend heavily
on things like audience and purpose, which are already frequently taught in
the first-year composition courses required for nearly every college student
in the United States. It is easy to see how this understanding of bullshit-
ting’s impact could extend to interpersonal skills as well. Not only is such
an understanding needed for success within most organizations (Spicer,
2020), it may be a proxy for social skills in general (Turpin et al., 2021).
Formal knowledge not just of bullshit, but how to decipher an organiza-
tion’s specific flavor thereof, could be an instrumental skill for advance-
ment in one’s organization or career. For example, since bullshit is a part of
most organizations’ cultures to some extent (Spicer, 2020), bullshit literate
students would likely have an easier time adapting to those of their future
workplaces. Bullshit literacy could also hone their abilities to distinguish
between true task competence and mere posturing, helping them to lead
high-achieving teams. Moreover, bullshit’s frequent use and success does
not mean people will not appreciate the lack of it (Penny, 2010). Simply
being able to avoid unknowingly reproducing bullshit should markedly
improve students’ career prospects.

Improved Mental Health

The claim that bullshit literacy can improve mental health may seem
dubious. However, conservation of resources theories of stress (e.g., job
demands-resources theory; Demerouti et al., 2001) suggest that this is a
real possibility. According to this perspective, stress is a product of individ-
uals lacking the resources to resolve whatever problems exist in their lives.
These resources could be material, psychological, or social in nature. To
use a workplace example, asking an employee to perform a function with
which they are unfamiliar could create stress through a lack of any of these
resource types. They may lack the physical strength, the proper training, or
even social connections or support at work to obtain assistance.
Given the energy required to understand and properly utilize bullshit,
its sheer ubiquity to workplaces, and its essentiality to success in many jobs
(Spicer, 2020), bullshit literacy is a vital resource for many jobholders, espe-
cially those in communication roles. While research on this specific idea
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 177

does not yet exist, existing evidence suggests bullshit literacy and bullshit-
ting skills are unevenly distributed resources (Graeber et al., 2018; Jerrim et
al., 2019; Reuben et al., 2012). A bullshit literacy unit could thus foster self-
efficacy and more internal loci of control in students whose backgrounds
may have systematically precluded them from developing these things.

Improved Employment Relationships

Whereas the three aforementioned benefits are more practical, individu-

alistic, and achievement-oriented, this final one is more collectivistic and
aspirational. Bullshit’s intertwinement with power dynamics suggests that
bullshit literacy, especially on a wider scale, could promote workplace fair-
ness and justice. We believe that facilitating an understanding of bullshit’s
uses will help students to think more critically about their relationships
with the bullshitters they will go on to encounter in their careers, who fre-
quently will a) hold positions of authority over them, and b) not have their
best interests at heart. We offer two real-life examples of how employers
might currently take advantage of bullshit illiteracy.
First, in their ethnography of Norwegian offshore oil extractors, du
Plessis and Vandeskog (2020) highlighted the harmful infiltration of bullshit
into health and safety protocols. Oil extraction is dangerous work, and
the industry once featured robust policies and procedures meant to keep
workers safe. Rising competition mandated cost-cutting, however, leading
to the gutting of these policies and replacement with a new set dubbed
“Resilience Engineering.” The researchers found these new policies to be,
in the academic sense, complete bullshit. The word “resilience” appeared in
some supportive publications dozens of times per page, to the point that it
was undoubtedly unclarifiable unclarity. Resilience Engineering’s ultimate
function, these researchers contended, was to “normalize and depoliti-
cize” (p. 9) the increasingly exploitative employment relationship. While
employees wanting to avoid risky working conditions had once had their
employers’ backing, Resilience Engineering shifted responsibility for safety
from the organization to individuals. This led to a sort of race to the bottom
between different units within these organizations, as each competed with
the others to see who could hold out the longest before deploying profit-
reducing safety measures like temporarily ceasing operations. What these
workers were notably not doing was questioning why such policies had
been instituted in the first place or pressuring employers to change them.
A similar dynamic might be observed with the narrative of the COVID-
19 pandemic’s essential workers as heroes, an example that would certainly
be relevant to the many students who worked such jobs during the pan-
demic. While “hero” is not as jargony as some of the other bullshit terms
178 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

discussed in this and other works, accounts from essential workers them-
selves, sympathetic journalists, and a few academics suggest that it was
deployed by organizations without regard for the true conditions essential
workers faced (e.g., Brogan, 2020; Hennekam et al., 2020; Manjoo, 2020).
Yet, these accounts, as well as the concept of complementary justice (Kay
et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2020), suggest that positive attributions like those of
heroism offset negative reactions to unjust social and working conditions.
The critical thinking, interpersonal skills, and sense of control bullshit lit-
eracy offers may help targets of nefarious heroism attributions and similar
rhetorical devices to see them for what they are. Calling essential workers
“heroes” is not a lie, but it may represent a distraction from truths that the
bullshitter cannot see – or does not want bullshittees to see. Moreover,
those who go on to roles involving the creation of these communications
may be prompted to consider the ethical implications in ways they other-
wise would not have.
Of course, even if bullshit like what is described in these examples is
detected by its targets, power dynamics may prevent them from doing
much of anything about it. However, workplace advocacy is more effec-
tive when it is collective in nature (e.g., Ahlquist, 2017). Less dramatically,
collective understanding of bullshit’s nature presents the best opportunity
for, if not negation, at least mitigation of the potential undesirable men-
tal health effects (cf. Llewellyn & Harrison, 2006). Though this collective
understanding would be best facilitated through bullshit literacy educa-
tion becoming widespread, simply encouraging students to pass the les-
sons they learn to trusted coworkers would be an excellent start.

Conclusion

Bullshit is everywhere. Whether or not students understand its meaning in

the academic sense, they probably bullshit all the time. Those who wish to
make a career out of business writing or communication, we suspect, are
especially likely to encounter bullshit more impactful than the artisanal
variety (Spicer, 2017) exchanged chiefly among friends. As things currently
stand, however, no tools for the teaching of bullshit literacy exist, despite
a wealth of information on the topic. Business writing students are rightly
told that bullshit is highly undesirable, but they are not taught to identify
it, let alone where it comes from. Bullshit literacy, then, is a timely and
practical lesson that we believe will help these students to understand not
just their chosen careers, but the place of such careers in the world at large.
Pervasive and powerful though bullshit may be, if people understand it,
getting rid of it can only get easier.
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 179

References
Ahlquist, J. S. (2017). Labor unions, political representation, and economic
inequality. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 409–432. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-023225
Alvesson, M. (2013). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education,
and work organization. Oxford University Press.
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A stupidity-based theory of organiza-
tions. Journal of Management Studies, 49(7), 1194–1220. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x
Anderson, E. (2019). Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why
we don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2017). The misman-
aged soul: Existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work. Human
Resource Management Review, 27(3), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
hrmr.2016.11.001
Bainbridge, T. F., Quinlan, J. A., Mar, R. A., Smillie, L. D., & Fajkowska, M. (2019).
Openness/intellect and susceptibility to pseudo–profound bullshit: A replica-
tion and extension. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 72–88. https://doi.
org/10.1002/per.2176
Bal, P. M., & Dóci, E. (2018). Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational
psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5),
536–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108
Bernoff, J. (2016). Writing without bullshit: Boost your career by saying what you
mean. HarperCollins.
Brogan, K. F. (2020, April 20). Calling me a hero only makes you
feel better. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/
archive/2020/04/i-work-grocery-store-dont-call-me-hero/610147/
Brandolini, A. (2014, May 30). Bullshit asymmetry principle [conference presenta-
tion]. XP2014, Rome, Italy.
Cassam, Q. (2018). Epistemic insouciance. Journal of Philosophical Research, 48,
1–20. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr2018828131
Celotta, J. (Writer), & Krasinski, J. (Director). (2010, February 4). Sabre (Season 6,
Episode 15) [Tv series episode]. In G. Daniels (Executive Producer), The Office.
Christensen, L. T., Kärreman, D., & Rasche, A. (2019). Bullshit and orga-
nization studies. Organization Studies, 40(10), 1587–1600. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840618820072
Cohen, G. A. (2006). Deeper into bullshit. In G. L. Hardcastle & G. A. Reisch.
(Eds.). Bullshit and philosophy (pp. 117–135). Open Court.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job
demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Dulek, R. E., & Campbell, K. S. (2015). On the dark side of strategic communi-
cation. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(1), 122–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414560107
180 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

du Plessis, E. M., & Vandeskog, B. (2020). Other stories of resilient safety manage-
ment in the Norwegian offshore sector: Resilience engineering, bullshit and
the de-politicization of danger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(1),
101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2020.101096
Eubanks, P., & Schaeffer, J. D. (2008). A kind word for bullshit: The problem of
academic writing. College Composition and Communication, 59(3), 372–388.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20457010
Ferreira, C., Hannah, D., McCarthy, I., Pitt, L., & Lord Ferguson, S.
(2022). This place is full of it: Towards an organizational bullshit
perception scale. Psychological Reports, 125(1), 448–463. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0033294120978162
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press.
Franzini, A. (2007). A final organizational communication project: Using the tele-
vision series The Office to engage college students. Communication Teacher,
21(4), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404620701780471
Gligorić, V., & Vilotijević, A. (2020). “Who said it?” How contextual informa-
tion influences perceived profundity of meaningful quotes and pseudo-
profound bullshit. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 535–542. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.3626
Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon and Schuster.
Gulbrandsen, I. T. (2019). The co-presence of clarity and ambiguity in strate-
gic corporate communication: An exploratory study. International Journal
of Strategic Communication, 13(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531
18X.2019.1575222
Hagge, J. (1989). Ties that bind: Ancient epistolography and modern business
communication. Journal of Advanced Composition, 9(1/2), 26–44. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/20865669
Hennekam, S., Ladge, J., & Shymko, Y. (2020). From zero to hero: An exploratory
study examining sudden hero status among nonphysician health care work-
ers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10),
1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000832
Janik, E., & Jensen, M. B. (2011). Giving them what they want: The Reinhardts
and quack medicine in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 94(4),
28–41. https://content.wisconsinhistory.org/digital/collection/wmh/id/50711
Jerrim, J., Parker, P., & Shure, D. (2019). Bullshitters: Who are they and what do
we know about their lives? IZA Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper
12282. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/196780/1/dp12282.pdf
Kankaanranta, A., & Planken, B. (2010). BELF competence as business knowledge
of internationally operating business professionals. The Journal of Business
Communication, 47(4), 380–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610377301
Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., &
Johnson, A. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justi-
fication: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequal-
ity. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 305–358. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39006-5
 SHOULD WE TEACH STUDENTS HOW TO BULLSHIT? 181

Kim, J. Y., Campbell, T. H., Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2020). Understanding
contemporary forms of exploitation: Attributions of passion serve to legitimize
the poor treatment of workers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
118(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000190
Lambert, S. J. (2008). Passing the buck: Labor flexibility practices that transfer
risk onto hourly workers. Human Relations, 61(9), 1203–1227. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726708094910
Li, Y., Goodell, J. W., & Shen, D. (2021). Comparing search-engine and social-
media attentions in finance research: Evidence from cryptocurrencies.
International Review of Economics & Finance, 75, 723–746. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.05.003
Lipford, J. W., & Rood, A. S. (2020). That’s what “Generation We” said? The
Office enables active learning and improved retention in the modern Human
Resource Management classroom. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education,
32(3), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2019.1655435
Littrell, S., Risko, E. F., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2020). The bullshitting frequency
scale: Development and psychometric properties. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 60(1), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12379
Liu, L. A., Chua, C. H., & Stahl, G. K. (2010). Quality of communication experi-
ence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0019094
Llewellyn, N., & Harrison, A. (2006). Resisting corporate communications:
Insights into folk linguistics. Human Relations, 59(4), 567–596. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726706065374
Manjoo, F. (2020, July 15). Please don’t call them heroes. New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/opinion/schools-reopening.html
McCarthy, I. P., Hannah, D., Pitt, L. F., & McCarthy, J. M. (2020). Confronting
indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. Business Horizons,
63(3), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2020.01.001
Meluch, A. L., & Gettings, P. E. (2019). Communication concepts in action: Best
practices in case study pedagogy in the organizational communication course.
Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 2. 119–126. https://doi.org/10.31446/
JCP.2019.21
Montes, G. C., & Nicolay, R. T. F. (2017). Does clarity of central bank communica-
tion affect credibility? Evidences considering governor-specific effects. Applied
Economics, 49(32), 3163–3180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1254346
Nilsson, A., Erlandsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. (2019). The complex relation
between receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit and political ideology.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(10), 1440–1454. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167219830415
Ong, W. J. (1981). Fighting for life: Contest, sexuality, and consciousness. Cornell
University Press.
Penny, L. (2010). Your call is important to us: The truth about bullshit. Emblem
Editions.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015).
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and
182 WRITING & PEDAGOGY

Decision Making, 10, 549–563. http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.

pdf
Petrocelli, J. V. (2018). Antecedents of bullshitting. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 76, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.004
Pfattheicher, S., & Schindler, S. (2016). Misperceiving bullshit as profound is
associated with favorable views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and conservatism. PloS
ONE, 11(4), e0153419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153419
Phetxumphou, K., Roy, S., Davy, B. M., Estabrooks, P. A., You, W., & Dietrich, A.
M. (2016). Assessing clarity of message communication for mandated USEPA
drinking water quality reports. Journal of Water and Health, 14(2), 223–235.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2015.134
Reuben, E., Rey-Biel, P., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2012). The emergence of
male leadership in competitive environments. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 83(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.016
Sausdal, D. (2020). Police bullshit. Journal of Extreme Anthropology, 4(1), 94–115.
https://doi.org/10.5617/jea.7360
Smagorinsky, P., Daigle, E. A., O’Donnell-Allen, C., & Bynum, S. (2010). Bullshit
in academic writing: A protocol analysis of a high school senior’s process of
interpreting Much Ado About Nothing. Research in the Teaching of English,
44(4), 368–405. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25704887
Spicer, A. (2013). Shooting the shit: The role of bullshit in organisations.
M@n@gement, 16(5), 653–666. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.165.0653
Spicer, A. (2017). Business bullshit. Routledge.
Spicer, A. (2020). Playing the bullshit game: How empty and misleading commu-
nication takes over organizations. Organization Theory, 1(2), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2631787720929704
Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (2011). Abstinence-only education and teen
pregnancy rates: Why we need comprehensive sex education in the US. PloS
ONE, 6(10), e24658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024658
Sterling, J., Jost, J. T., & Pennycook, G. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible
to bullshit? Judgment & Decision Making, 11(4), 352–360. http://journal.sjdm.
org/16/16305/jdm16305.pdf
Thill, J. V. & Bovée, C. L. (2020). Excellence in business communication (13th ed).
Pearson.
Turpin, M. H., Kara-Yakoubian, M., Walker, A. C., Walker, H. E., Fugelsang, J. A., &
Stolz, J. A. (2021). Bullshit ability as an honest signal of intelligence. Evolutionary
Psychology, 19(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211000317
Wakeham, J. (2017). Bullshit as a problem of social epistemology. Sociological
Theory, 35(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275117692835
West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project DARE outcome effectiveness revisited.
American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 1027–1029. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.94.6.1027
Wutscher, R., Leeth, A., Tsai, E., Hebson, R., & Williamson, A. (2016).
Communicating with bankrupt mortgage loan borrowers. The Business
Lawyer, 71(2), 771–780.
Copyright of Writing & Pedagogy is the property of Equinox Publishing Group and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.