A question: Is there ever a good reason for intentional ambiguity?

As in, that which is clearly setup to deceive.

Darwin* would surely claim it second nature to sniff out bullshit and automatically be immune to it. (*Presuming those susceptible to blatant trickery bred themselves out of the gene-pool by following the other lemmings off the cliff, sipping the Jonestown Kool-aid, wandering into traffic etc.)

Yet, BS abounds. (read Laura Penny’s “Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit”).

In any informational industry, artful, cloudy BS can provide a buffer, profit, leeway, and/or juggled accountability. For a while. Sooner than later, more times than not, industries self-correct themselves leaving the deceivers empty-handed with a poor track record. Sound short-term strategy geared towards profit but rarely sustainable in the long-term.

Transparent. The new black.

service-ontario

Pictured above: ServiceOntario (Ontario version of the DMV). Those waiting to be served are handed vague, non-sequential ticket numbers on purpose. Likely intended to confuse/lull the impatient, waiting masses. (avoiding fiery pitchfork protests or a more typical Canadian response: passive-aggressive bitching about being served out of sequence).

My ticket read something like:

algebra