That took me a while to process. I read the article yesterday, and thought about it. Here is a (long) answer:

The analysis is pertinent, because I have been investigating, in the context of local government, the split between strategic management and pragmatic management. So a similar split exists between executive management and operational management - this has been discussed ad nauseam in academic papers, because the issue causes friction - often with the complaint that the street bureaucrats tend to ignore stuff if they perceive it is Bullshit, and that is infuriating to those who made Strategic (lol Big Boy) decisions.

The argument in the OP article is that people Bullshit when they need to fill a space in the conversation, and don't know much about the subject. We see Annalina Baerbok and AOC doing this: they are talking out of their hat. But the idea worked on me. What if the person may be technically competent, but it is impossible to make a cogent answer, because the question is bullshit?

What happens is: An executive, or some Big Boy (usually an engineer with NO pragmatic or discretional logic training) decides that X has to occur. This is pushed down the hierarchy until the street bureaucrat has to implement the directive and finds out that it is impossible to get it 'correct'.

The context is: In NZ Building law, there is a need for the street bureaucrat, i.e. the processor, or inspector, to record a decision. OBVIO. Everyone wants to know whether an item passes muster. So that's a Yes, or No answer. What the Big Boys have decided is that a reason for decision must also be recorded. The latter is NOT in the building act. But hey, here is a spreadsheet of items, and here is a box for the reasons-for-decison - that was easy. So, auditors, competency asssesors, and executives are all saying the same thing: There must be MOAR reasons for decision. It turns out, that's an ultimate and ubiquotous criticism of someone's work, because there can never be enough information to satisfy that mysterious directive, because there will ALWAYS be not enough information. To add to the frustration, there are no instructions on HOW to make it satisfactory, because how would one even start to write an operational or contextual set of instructions? Just think about that:

Put a list of materials? Just look at the plans, already, right there, in the project. Record every item that one looked at? - LOL a diary - how about record the footage on some camera glasses - yeah, nah - too onerous? Is an inspector expected to re-process the plans by recording every item, AGAIN? Well they do to some extent, but that could potentially take thousands of words. One would be there all day. And if the thing complies, why does one need to write a thesis about it already?

What happens is that these people do not find statement like "Such and such element complies with the law" or "As per the consented plans", to be enough of a reason. So how many words are enough then? Is it quantity one is concerned about? A paragraph? Two sentences?. No, they say, it is not about quantity, but quality. OK thanks for that.

The result, of course is Bullshit. The Bullshit directive (because it's not in the Act) engenders MOAR bullshit LOL. The argument is: In the case where there is no point in regurgitating the placement and type of every fastening, for example, it would be easier, and more efficient, to say: "as per the consented plans", with some photographs of critical junctions, and maybe a photograph of the plans on-site - because that is proof of what the builder is following, after all. In any case, if something complies, and one trusts the builder because one knows the earnest and licensed fellow - it passes, in one's professional opinion. And that's what's in the Building Act, after all.

Also, a customer really only wants to know WHY something has failed. But woe betide those inspectors who DARE to only record reasons for failure - in this rabid search for "reasons for decision". The auditors etc. want a paragraph in every box.

So one is forced to produce a lengthy paragraph to satisfy something that is Bullshit, and TMI in most cases. And it makes up more Bullshit (with the result that competency assessments take literal months to process, because the assessor has to wade through tomes of bullshit - and surely that situation is counter to the idea that one is to Cut Red Tape (another Bullshit directive, floating around)?

Sorry dog, I am not a dummy, just a brain dead, so I don't read that! LOL

Shouldn't this be called Dogcrap for Dummies? Kek!