Humbug, cowpats, or mindf**king, how do you determine the difference?

I take issue with your assumption that "we all use" any of those things. If I open my mouth I tell you what I think.  Not what I think you want to hear so you will like me. I'm not wired that way. "Polite conversation" has never been my cuppa tea so I don't engage in it. It gives me nothing. It is blather and palaver and useless and wastes  time  . I don't bullsh** people.   I don't give compliments where none are deserved. I tell you what I think all the time no matter what...with one caveat of course. I would change the language I use so I wouldn't hurt someone's feelings and I would tell a white lie if it meant being kind rather than being cruel or mean. At my age  what you see is what you get and if you  like it that's great and if you don't that's great too. It doesn't matter to me. I don't tell people what they want to hear. So the humbug and cowpats and bullsh** and sucking up and brown nosing that some engage in I don't. As for being beguiled if you mean have I been tricked? Yes. A lot. Because I tend to believe in people and trust them until/unless they prove me wrong. I'm not suspicious of their motives. I have probably been beguiled a lot in my life and not known it.  Some folks are expert liars. I'm not an expert at lie-detecting  or  phony or faking.   I am very logical but I am not limited by logic so I'm flexible. No doors are locked in my mind. Some are shut but they can always be opened. I'm not rigid nor scripted nor limited by other people's beliefs, views, opinions. I very much appreciate those who understand  me and don't beat me up because of it. They  understand my intention even if I don't always express myself clearly. I like not  having to explain myself. Do those who are brainwashed ever realize it?  Happy Friday hartfire! :) 

I always start from the premise that certain sources of information/influence cannot be trusted (e.g., government and the government's media house organ) and consider them unreliable as a matter of routine. If a source has something to gain by convincing me of X, then X is automatically suspect. (That isn't necessarily anything. :-))

I'm generally inclined to accept information which is consistent with what I've already established to be true and/or which conforms to my understanding of reality, but...anything which elicits or is intended to elicit a change in my approach to life or cognition gets full analysis using previously established modes of thinking.

Any specific assay of whether a given datum is genuine, bovine excrement or mind-copulation, however, generally follows a few simple rules; does the purveyor of the information have anything to gain by convincing me of X as indicated above; does the purveyor of information seek or receive personal gratification by convincing me of X; does the purveyor of information demonstrate an interest in the wellbeing of anyone other than him/herself? Etc.

In summary, I follow the exchange theory of human interaction.  No matter what the transaction, there's always a pay-off for the person who initiated it.  Cui bono?

Thank you for your passionate and open response, Rosie.

From what I have read of you elsewhere I know it is true.

I apologise for my over generalisations.

Happy Friday to you too! :)

I love your answer. Thank you! :)

lol at the latinate terminology.

Makes even my glutei maximi giggle.

No apologies needed hartfire and you're welcome! :)

Realistically how can you tell ... If you are beguiled then you may read both sides of an argument but still only believe the side you already believe in and also believe you've explored both sides

What a beautiful way of expressing it!

And so simple!

lol :D

Mmm.

I use four tell-tales:

logic,

evidence,

congruence in language and behaviour,

and looking for motive.