One thing missing from this model is an explanation of why the BS is so often close enough to actual arguments to confuse people who are persuaded by arguments for so long. Some partial explanations:
One of the rules of BS is that challenges to well-defended parts of shared narrative are expensive, which limits which things someone can say in a way that will often locally look like logical consistency.
It’s tough to use literally no logical inference or structure, so valid inferences will always be at least a little appealing, especially short concrete ones.
Making things look like arguments is a cheap way to trick naïve truthseekers into thinking you’re on the same team at least some of the time, so long as it doesn’t compromise any of your other political goals.
Many common narratives, especially in formal contexts, either are or used to be controlled by people who care about logical coherence, so people are conditioned to think of the appearance of argument as a type of desirable flair in more formal contexts.
Excellent points. My model above happens, but it’s not the only kind of argument. As usual, there’s a spectrum, and I was mostly just describing one extreme of it.
It’s also worth pointing out that logic or proper reasoning don’t weaken this kind of argument. They’re unnecessary, but if you’re well-put-together enough to use them without having to stop and think, they’ll make you seem all the more impressive. So, logic doesn’t ruin this kind of social grandstanding; it’s just not necessary
One thing missing from this model is an explanation of why the BS is so often close enough to actual arguments to confuse people who are persuaded by arguments for so long. Some partial explanations:
One of the rules of BS is that challenges to well-defended parts of shared narrative are expensive, which limits which things someone can say in a way that will often locally look like logical consistency.
It’s tough to use literally no logical inference or structure, so valid inferences will always be at least a little appealing, especially short concrete ones.
Making things look like arguments is a cheap way to trick naïve truthseekers into thinking you’re on the same team at least some of the time, so long as it doesn’t compromise any of your other political goals.
Many common narratives, especially in formal contexts, either are or used to be controlled by people who care about logical coherence, so people are conditioned to think of the appearance of argument as a type of desirable flair in more formal contexts.
Excellent points. My model above happens, but it’s not the only kind of argument. As usual, there’s a spectrum, and I was mostly just describing one extreme of it.
It’s also worth pointing out that logic or proper reasoning don’t weaken this kind of argument. They’re unnecessary, but if you’re well-put-together enough to use them without having to stop and think, they’ll make you seem all the more impressive. So, logic doesn’t ruin this kind of social grandstanding; it’s just not necessary