Lies, Nonsense, Stupidity

Not every false statement is a lie. Anyone who wants to defend themselves against manipulation must be able to distinguish why something false is being said – by mistake, by calculation or out of indifference. For the remedies are completely different: an error you correct, a lie you withdraw your trust from, nonsense you expose, and bullshit you counter by stubbornly insisting on the substance.

In this section we sharpen four distinctions that are constantly muddled in everyday life. We introduce each one with a little story, then make the terms precise – and say why the distinction matters.

Error and Lie

Anna calls across the platform to her friend: "The train doesn't leave until 2:30!" – and the two of them calmly have another coffee. At 2:00 the train pulls away. Anna had an outdated timetable in her head. She was mistaken. If, on the other hand, Anna had known that the train left at 2:00 but had deliberately told her friend the wrong time because she wanted to travel alone – then she would have lied.

Both say the same false sentence. The difference lies not in the content, but in knowledge and in intention:

• Error: Someone holds something false to be true and passes it on in good faith. There is no intention to deceive – on the contrary, the person in error believes they are telling the truth themselves.
• Lie: Someone considers a statement to be false themselves (or knows that it is false) and nevertheless utters it with the intention of leading others astray.

Remarkably, a lie need not be objectively false at all. Anyone who holds something to be false and says it with intent to deceive is lying even if it happens to be true. What is decisive is the attitude towards the truth, not the chance of the outcome.

Why this matters: Anyone who immediately brands every false statement as a lie poisons conversations and imputes a malice that is usually absent – the vast majority of mistakes are errors. Conversely, a genuine lie deserves a different response than an error: an error is refuted with better information, whereas with a lie it is trust itself that is at stake.

Nonsense and Lie

A tube of toothpaste reads: "Now with pure freshness energy – for a smile that shines from within." Next to it, in another country, a tube bearing the words: "Recommended by 9 out of 10 dentists" – a figure the marketing department made up. The first sentence sounds like a statement but asserts nothing testable. The second asserts something concrete that is simply invented.

• Nonsense: An utterance that has no clear, testable content. It is grammatically correct but semantically empty – neither true nor false, because it makes no real claim about the world at all. It often merely feigns meaning or depth ("profound-sounding nonsense").
• Lie: An utterance with a truth value. It asserts something specific that is false – and is therefore refutable in principle.

The difference: a lie can be refuted, because it asserts something definite. Nonsense can only be exposed, because there is nothing to refute – one has to show that there is no testable statement at all.

Why this matters: Nonsense immunises itself against criticism. Anyone who takes it for a serious claim wastes energy on sham debates. The most effective counter-question is: "What exactly is being claimed here – and how would I recognise that it is false?" If that cannot be answered, you are dealing not with a lie but with nonsense.

Bullshit and Lie

At a reception, a guest holds forth for minutes on end about the central bank's interest-rate policy. He does not know the facts and does not want to know them either – his sole concern is to appear competent and sophisticated. Whether what he says is true or not is fundamentally a matter of indifference to him. He is not lying; he is bullshitting.

The philosopher Harry Frankfurt captured this difference precisely in his essay On Bullshit (2005):

• Liar: He knows (or believes he knows) the truth and consciously sets himself against it. Precisely for that reason he takes the truth seriously – he has to know what is true in order to miss it deliberately.
• Bullshitter: He is indifferent to whether his statements are true or false. He is not against the truth, he ignores it. His aim is effect – impression, persuasion, self-presentation – not deception about a particular fact.

Figuratively: the liar plays the game about truth, only on the wrong side. The bullshitter does not play it at all. Frankfurt's famous conclusion: this is precisely why bullshit is "a greater enemy of the truth than lies are".

Why this matters: Bullshit pervades advertising, election campaigns and social media. You can confront a liar with facts – but not a bullshitter, because facts do not interest him. The real competence consists in recognising the indifference towards the truth: is there a struggle over correctness here, or is mere effect being produced?

Stupidity and Bullshit

Two students sit the same exam. One has not studied and fills the gap with a verbose, grandiose answer meant to look impressive – pure bullshit. The other has studied honestly but has not understood the material, and writes something false in good faith. The first is a strategy, the second a lack of understanding.

• Stupidity: A lack of judgement, knowledge or cognitive ability. It concerns ability – and is as a rule involuntary.
• Bullshit: A communicative attitude of indifference towards the truth. It concerns intention or attitude – and can well be skilful and deliberate.

The difference: stupidity cannot be held against anyone who is doing their best; it happens without intent. Bullshit, by contrast, can be highly intelligent – it is often precisely clever, articulate people who produce the most sophisticated bullshit. Conversely, a "simple" person can be entirely sincere and concerned with the truth.

Why this matters: We quickly lump the two together ("What an idiot!"), yet the remedies differ: against stupidity, education, patience and explanation help; against bullshit, only demanding accountability to the truth helps. Anyone who takes a sincere person for a bullshitter (or vice versa) is guaranteed to react wrongly – and is thereby more easily manipulated themselves.

Special Case: Self-Deception

A smoker has been telling himself for years: "A little doesn't hurt, my grandfather lived to 90 too." He is not lying to those around him, but to himself.

• Lie: directed outwards, with knowledge of the truth.
• Self-deception: directed inwards. One holds a pleasant untruth to be true because one wants to hold it to be true – the line between knowing and not-knowing is deliberately blurred.

Why this matters: Self-deception is the most insidious form, for "perpetrator" and "victim" are the same person. Before we can recognise manipulation by others, we have to recognise the manipulation by ourselves. Critical thinking therefore always begins by turning inward as well.

Overview

Form	Relation to the truth	Intention	Truth value	Remedy
Error	holds the false to be true	no deception	false (in good faith)	correction, better information
Lie	knows the truth, turns against it	to deceive	false (deliberately)	fact-check, withdrawal of trust
Nonsense	no relation to the truth at all	mostly just effect	none (not testable)	expose: "What is being claimed?"
Bullshit	indifferent to the truth	impression, effect	irrelevant	demand accountability
Stupidity	wants the truth but cannot reach it	none	often false	education, explanation, patience
Self-deception	represses one's own insight	to reassure oneself	false (willingly)	self-examination, honesty

These distinctions are not an academic game. Anyone who masters them responds more appropriately in any discussion, avoids unfair accusations – and is considerably harder to manipulate, because they immediately ask: Is this about the truth, or only about the effect?

Sources and Further Reading

• Harry G. Frankfurt: On Bullshit (Princeton University Press, 2005); German edition Bullshit (Suhrkamp, 2006).
• Liars, Bullshitters and Fools (video, in German)
• Lecture "Bullshit Resistance" (UdK Berlin, 2023): Fake News