Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

Overall reaction

• Many see the findings as obvious: people impressed by vacuous corporate language tend to be less analytically sharp and worse at decision-making.
• Others welcome having empirical backing as something to point to at work, even if it feels like “water is wet” science.
• Some note the headline itself uses mild corporate euphemism (“might be bad at their jobs” ≈ “might be dumb”).

Study design, validity, and limits

• Debate over falsifiability:
  • Critics claim the conclusions are so broad they’re unfalsifiable “horoscope science.”
  • Defenders point out the study correlates a bullshit-receptivity scale with established cognitive and decision-making tests; those correlations could have come out null or reversed.
• Several remind that the study uses lab measures, not direct on-the-job performance, so “bad at their jobs” is an extrapolation.

What corporate bullshit is and why it exists

• Distinction drawn between:
  • Technical jargon: precise within a domain.
  • Corporate bullshit: abstract, impressive-sounding, semantically thin or empty.
• Suggested functions:
  • Obfuscation, plausible deniability, and “smoke screens” around layoffs and failures.
  • Emotional buffering: softening harsh realities, diffusing conflict, and avoiding accountability.
  • Coded language: euphemistic signals to managers (e.g., “align” or “synergize” implying cuts or redundancy).

Signaling, status, and promotion

• Corp-speak is framed as in‑group signaling and status language, similar to dialects/subcultures.
• Some argue those who like or generate it help elevate dysfunctional leaders who use it; others counter that promotions are decided above the rank‑and‑file and based more on results and reputation.
• Several note executives code‑switch: plain talk in private, bullshit in town halls.

Impact on organizations and workers

• Corporate BS is described as lowering information content, slowing decisions, and acting like a “clogged toilet” rather than a “rising tide.”
• Yet BS‑receptive employees may be more satisfied and inspired by missions, fitting well in BS‑heavy cultures even if analytically weaker.

Parallels in tech and programming

• Some compare corporate jargon to overused OOP/design patterns, “Clean Code” dogma, or Agile/Scrum buzzwords—helpful in moderation, cultish and obfuscating when overapplied.

HN meta and culture

• Commenters note that anti‑BS articles are perennial HN favorites and discuss shifts in HN tone over the years, from more toxic/certain to somewhat more supportive.