Brandolini's law: what it is and how it influences the diffusion of ideas

A man dressed in the garments of a yogi and sitting on the ground is asked what his secret is to be so happy, to which he answers: "Do not argue with idiots."

Surprised, whoever had asked him the question could not resist saying a resounding "Well, I don't agree." The other man, with a Gandhian aura, replies: "He is right."

This curious anecdote helps us to introduce a maxim that we should introduce into our daily lives: Brandolini's law. If you want to discover more about this interesting postulate, we invite you to continue reading and be surprised.

• Related article: "The Incompetence Peter Principle: The" Useless Boss "Theory"

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, principle of the asymmetry of bullshit, with forgiveness (in English it has become popular as “bullshit asymmetry principle ”).

It is a maxim that prevails 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 required to disprove nonsense is much greater than that required to produce it.

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

"The bullshit asymmetry (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 needed to refute nonsense is of a greater magnitude than to produce it."

This comment, including typographical error, reached viral proportions in a matter of hours. According to Brandolini himself, he was inspired to release such a maxim after reading the book of Daniel kahneman “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 credulous), the French sociologist Gérard Bronner affirmed that to disprove a falsehood it was necessary to present very solid, while nonsense often uses cognitive biases, making it seem more plausible than scientific explanations that 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.

1. Impact asymmetry

Spreading the bullshit makes it have more impact than any subsequent attempt to disable them.

2. Memory retention asymmetry

The imprint that speech leaves in memory is much deeper that any information that later contradicts it, however true it may be.

• You may be interested in: "Types of memory: how does the human brain store memories?"

3. Anointing asymmetry

Whoever spreads the speech is anointed with an advantageous aura, while whoever tries to be right is seen as a killjoy that he does not understand anything or that he has allowed himself to be convinced by the official discourse.

• Related article: "The 28 types of communication and their characteristics"

Principle of the asymmetry of stupidity and mental health

In a world where new technologies have such a great impact, it is highly recommended to resist arguing with people who, under anonymity, release nonsense of all kinds, each one greater than the last. Arguing with someone who will never admit that we are right is of absolutely nothing beyond feeling overwhelmed, frustrated and anxious.

We can also apply this to people we do know, family and friends who, at times, are a bit hard on understanding. Hardly anyone changes their mind when it is argued, whether they are right or wrong. There are few occasions in which people, after having had an intense and heated debate, enlighten ourselves and willingly accept to question our beliefs in the face of new evidence.

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

The conclusion of all this is that, watching over our mental health, we must take our reason, keep it to ourselves and not wasting time in an argument that leads nowhere. Giving arguments to someone who does not want to hear them is like giving honey to a donkey.

• You may be interested in: "The 14 types of logical and argumentative fallacies"

Godwin's law

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

Controlling yourself and avoiding getting into a rag is complicated. We see someone spout a sovereign foolishness and we want to prove that they are wrong, and more importantly, that we are right. If we are unlucky enough to fall into one of these debates because we have not been able to resist the temptation to discuss, there is an unmistakable sign of when is the best time to end it: by mentioning 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 meanest, most lousy person of recent times will be mentioned. Although this law is usually related to Internet discussions, it is perfectly applicable to real life. The longer a discussion is, the more likely someone is to mention this ridiculous mustache gentleman and, you know, absurd discussions tend to spread like bubble gum.

But the best way to prevent absurd discussions from arising in our closest environment is simply not to reinforce them. If a family member (p. g., typical brother-in-law) or a friend (p. g., our colleague the incel) is prone to making nonsense, the best we can do is apply the wise and serendipitous postulate of Mr. Alberto Brandolini, discuss with him and avoid giving him what he has been looking for: casito. The more ignored you feel when you say tremendous nonsense, the less likely it is that you will continue to say it in the future.