Brandolini’s law: what it is and how it influences the dissemination of ideas.

Let's see what Brandolini's law is and what it says about communication and persuasion.

A man dressed in the robes of a yogi and sitting on the floor is asked what his secret is for being so happy, to which he replies: "Don't argue with idiots".

Surprised, the man who had asked him the question could not resist blurting out a resounding "Well, I don't agree". The other man, with a Gandhian aura, replies: "You're right".

This curious anecdote serves to introduce a maxim that we should introduce in our daily lives: Brandolini's law. If you want to discover more about this interesting postulate, we invite you to read on and be surprised.

What is Brandolini's law?

Brandolini's law is also called the principle of the asymmetry of nonsense, the principle of the asymmetry of bullshit or even the principle of the asymmetry of bullshit, with apologies (in English it has been popularized as the "bullshit asymmetry principle").

This is a maxim circulating on the Internet that emphasizes how difficult it is to try to dismantle a false belief or information of dubious quality, proclaiming that the amount of energy needed to disprove nonsense is much greater than that needed to produce it..

This curious law was formulated and popularized in January 2013 by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer who posted on his Twitter account the following comment:

"The bullshit asimmetry (sic): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it".

"The asymmetry of bullshit: the total energy required to refute nonsense is of a magnitude greater than to produce it."

This comment, misspelling included, reached viral proportions in a matter of hours, reached viral proportions in a matter of hours.. According to Brandolini himself, he was inspired to utter such a maxim after reading Daniel Kahneman's book "think fast, think slow" (2011) just before witnessing a political debate between journalist Marco Travaglio and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi attacking each other.

This principle is closely linked to the debate on fake news and cognitive bias.. In his book "La Démocratie des crédules" (The Democracy of the Gullible), the French sociologist Gérard Bronner stated that to disprove a falsehood it was necessary to present very solid arguments, whereas nonsense often makes use of cognitive biases, making it seem more plausible than scientific explanations which are often much more complicated.

Laurent Vercueil, neurologist and researcher at the Institute of Neurosciences in Grenoble (France), considers that Brandolini's law has the following aspects.

Asymmetry of impact

Spreading nonsense makes it have more impact than any subsequent attempt to defuse it. than any subsequent attempt to defuse it.

2. Asymmetry of memory retention.

The imprint left in memory by the speech is much deeper than any information that contradicts it, no matter how much than any information that later contradicts it, no matter how truthful it may be.

3. Anointing asymmetry

Whoever spreads the discourse is anointed with an advantageous aura, whereas who tries to be right is seen as a spoilsport who doesn't understand who does not understand anything or who has allowed himself to be convinced by the official discourse.

Principle of the asymmetry of stupidity and mental health.

In a world where new technologies have such a great impact, it is highly advisable to resist arguing with people who, under anonymity, spout all kinds of nonsense, each one bigger than the last.each one bigger than the last. Arguing with someone who will never recognize that we are right does us absolutely no good beyond feeling overwhelmed, frustrated and anxious.

We can also apply this to people we do know, family and friends who are sometimes a bit hard to understand. Hardly anyone changes their mind when arguing, whether they are right or wrong. There are few occasions when people, after having had an intense and heated debate, become enlightened and willingly accept to question our beliefs in the face of new evidence.

Most of us mortals are blinded by confirmation bias, looking for and highlighting what "confirms" our already well-established beliefs and discarding what we see that contradicts them. Therefore, trying to convince someone can be very costly in terms of time and effort, something that can exhaust us physically and mentally and damage our mental health.

The conclusion of all this is that, in the interest of our mental health, we must take our reason, keep it to ourselves and not to waste time in a discussion that leads to nothing.. Giving arguments to someone who does not want to listen to them is like giving honey to a donkey.

Godwin's law

Saying nonsense, nonsense and imbecilities is very easy.. Let's be honest, in that we all have experience, even those of us who go through life as intellectuals and connoisseurs. It is inevitable that from time to time we speak out of turn and over our heads, saying things that are simply not true, either because we have exaggerated them or because we really believe them.

It is difficult to control ourselves and avoid getting into a rage. We see someone spouting off some bullshit and we want to prove them wrong, and more importantly, that we're right. If we are unlucky enough to fall into one of these debates because we have not been able to resist the temptation to argue, there is an unmistakable sign of when it is the best time to end it: at the mention of Adolf Hitler.

This phenomenon is called Godwin's law, even though it is more of a statement. Basically this law holds that sooner or later in every discussion, the most evil, most evil person of recent times will be mentioned.. While this law is usually related to Internet discussions, it is perfectly applicable to real life. The longer a discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will mention this guy with the ridiculous mustache and, you know, absurd discussions tend to stretch like chewing gum.

But the best way to prevent absurd discussions from arising in our immediate environment is simply not to reinforce them.. If a relative (e.g., a typical brother-in-law) or a friend (e.g., a friend of yours) is in the same room as you, you should not reinforce them. e.g., our colleague the incel) is prone to spouting nonsense, the best we can do is to apply the wise and serendipitous postulate of Mr. Alberto Brandolini, argue with him and avoid giving him what he has been looking for: casito. The more ignored he feels when spouting such nonsense, the less likely he will be to continue spouting it in the future.