Don McMinn

Bull session: an informal discursive group discussion; a conversation among a small group of people

I long for a setting in which friends can explore half-baked thoughts, doubts, and questions with no fear of being judged, betrayed, or retaliated against. A conversation that is process-driven rather than end-directed; the aim isn’t to convince anyone to change their view or to reach a consensus, but simply to hear and value the range of perspectives.

Harry Frankfurt (professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University) calls this type of conversation a bull session. He writes:

“The characteristic topics of a bull session have to do with very personal and emotion-laden aspects of life—for instance, religion, politics, or sex. People are generally reluctant to speak altogether openly about these topics if they expect that they might be taken too seriously. What tends to go on in a bull session is that the participants try out various thoughts and attitudes in order to see how it feels to hear themselves saying such things and in order to discover how others respond, without its being assumed that they are committed to what they say: it is understood by everyone in a bull session that the statements people make do not necessarily reveal what they really believe or how they really feel. The main point is to make possible a high level of candor and an experimental or adventuresome approach to the subjects under discussion.

“Each of the contributors to a bull session relies, in other words, upon a general recognition that what he expresses or says is not to be understood as being what he means wholeheartedly or believes unequivocally to be true. The purpose of the conversation is not to communicate beliefs. Accordingly, the usual assumptions about the connection between what people say and what they believe are suspended” (On Bullshit, pages 36-37).

In the film Christopher Robin, Christopher asks Pooh, “What do you like doing best in the world, Pooh?”

“‘Well, said Pooh, what I like best’—and then he had to stop and think. Because although eating honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn’t know what it was called.” 

Every December, my family and I fly to London and sail back to the States on the Queen Mary 2. It is a wonderful family tradition. Last year (2021), Covid made the trip very challenging. Several family members needed new passports but the passport office was so backed up we had to wait until the day before the trip to walk into a passport office and hopefully walk out with renewed passports. We got the passports five hours before our plane left. We all needed a negative Covid to board the plane, another negative test within 48 hours of arriving in London, another before we boarded the ship and another before disembarking in New York City. There were many hurdles that could have hijacked the trip. 

Fortunately, all went well and all five of us boarded the ship. When we had dinner together the first night, there was a collective euphoria about having made it. What we felt was what Pooh was trying to describe: Sometimes anticipating an event and striving to make it happen has its own reward. 

Sometimes the journey is as satisfying as reaching the destination and often, a difficult journey makes the arrival even more rewarding.

When we know others are present, we feel less responsible to act, a phenomenon known as diffusion of responsibility. (Kida p221)

In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was assaulted, raped, and murdered outside her New York City apartment. First, she was stabbed twice, and although she screamed for help, no one came to her rescue, even though 38 witnessed the tragedy. The bystanders didn’t even call the police.

Following this shocking event, researchers wanted to understand why no one responded. After much research, two social psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latané, published insight into a socio-psychological phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility (also called the bystander effect). 

The bystander effect is the phenomenon in which the presence of people (i.e., bystanders) influences an individual’s likelihood of helping a person in an emergency situation. Specifically, Darley and Latané hypothesized that as the number of people who are present in an emergency situation increases, the less likely it is that any single individual will help someone in need. The findings suggest that in the case of an emergency, when people believe that there are other people around, they are less likely or slower to help a victim because they believe someone else will take responsibility.

For the most part, when we are by ourselves, individuals are eager to help others and look out for one another. But when we get in a group, we’re reluctant to take action. How is it that kind and loving people can see a problem and not respond?

One cause for hesitation may be people’s lack of confidence or competence. Or, they may think others in the group would be better at helping. Another cause is thinking surely, someone else will act. Or, when other bystanders do nothing, people may think there’s no real need to help out.

In May 2020 I was guilty of diffusion of responsibility. I was shopping at Walgreens when a man fell to the floor having a seizure. About five customers, including me, did nothing but stare at him for about a minute. It was at the onset of the Covid pandemic and I remember wondering if this was a violent reaction to the virus, in which case I should not intervene without proper protective gear. I did call 911, but in retrospect I wish I had offered physical help and assurance. 

Have you ever fallen prey to the diffusion of responsibility? 

A more subtle expression of this disorder is the thought—When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. We’re often passive or slow to respond to a need because it’s not our specific job—it’s everyone’s job. 

In the future I’m going to be more responsive in emergency situations.

Last week someone asked my opinion about the college student debt debacle we have in our country. I started to offer a half-baked response based on bits and pieces of what I’ve heard in the media. But I paused, and then said, “I don’t have an opinion about that.” A longer, more accurate response would have been, “I don’t have an intelligent, informed viewpoint about that. I’ve not done the necessary research to substantiate an opinion.”

How long has it been since you said, “I don’t have an opinion about that”? It’s a phrase we should use more often.

Consider…

1. You don’t need to have an opinion about everything. Selectively choose the topics you’re willing to pursue and leave the others alone. Some topics are trivial and an impromptu response is fine: If someone asks my point of view about a movie or restaurant, I’ll respond without thinking much about it.
2. We should have an opinion about important issues. Don’t be intellectually lazy and neglect developing convictions; it takes time and effort to properly research a topic.
3. Form your opinions slowly and base them on facts. Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Daniel Moynihan famously said “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  Wouldn’t it be nice if our opinions were informed by facts and not assumptions. (I know…the challenge these days is deciphering fact from fiction).
4. Don’t finalize your opinion until you’ve researched at least two opposing positions regarding an issue. On many issues, we start with a biased position (often suggested by which cable news channel we watch, our family of origin, or our political persuasion). Prior to solidifying your stance, you should be able to argue both sides of an issue.
5. Hold your opinion lightly and be open to change. I’m always amazed how highly intelligent people often espouse opposing views. For instance, there are Nobel-Prize winning economists who believe austerity is the solution to a troubled national economy and there are Nobel-Prize winning economists who believe subsidies are the solution.  
6. Be respectful of other peoples’ opinions. What are the chances that you are 100% correct in all your opinions and convictions? The answer is obvious—0%. So proceed with humility and remain malleable.

So, what is your opinion about this post? 🙂