The pure form of Simonitch's Law reads: The quality of bullshit to be sifted is directly proportional to the square of the number of people sifting. Expressed mathematically, the Law reads:
Qbs = P2
To arrive at the precise quantity by weight of bullshit realizable from any given meeting, however, certain modifications of the pure form of the Law must be made. Each person brings with him a determinate quantity of bullshit to any meeting. Field studies show (to the delight of feminists) that women can carry as heavy a load as men, so the Law does not discriminate between the sexes. Likewise, race or creed does not seem to affect the operation of the Law. The first modification refines the Law as follows:
Qbs = kP2
Where k represents the constant quantity of bullshit brought to the meeting by each individual.
My researches show that this Law, as a general statement of conditions, is absolutely applicable to any meeting, although special conditions apply to meetings of more than 25 people, as will be described below.
Experimental research has determined the value of k to be 1.5. The value is necessarily a statistical one. Although everyone invariable brings a determinate amount of bullshit to any meeting, obviously not everyone speaks out, relying instead on a number of dominant personalities to carry the load. Dominant persons compose about 20 percent of any meeting. Another 20 percent adhere strictly to the bullshit factor, being expressive but not outspoken. The remaining 60 percent are relatively passive. Their bullshit is added to the meeting through the phenomenon of transference, whereby dominant people expostulate the bullshit of passive people. Every organization contains people who will dominate any meeting. This is generally accepted without complaint, and indeed these people perform a valuable service in occupying everyone's time. However, when the designated dominant people are absent, others ordinarily assigned a lesser status will move up, at least temporarily. This a meeting is never without the requisite bullshit, and the value of k applies absolutely.
The formula is also affected by the temperature of the room in which the meeting is held. A temperature of 60 degrees is ideal for the cultivation of the maximum amount of bullshit. In a room below this temperature, people tend to complain of being cold, whereas above it, they tend to slumber. Both conditions may cause the proceedings to drag on. Social scientists, therefore, have found it necessary to subtract a factor which consists of the cube of the absolute differential (that is, whether plus or minus) between 68 degrees and the actual temperature of the room. The modification changes the Law to read:
Qbs = kP2 - ITI3
For a while, researchers thought that the law was affected by the number of items on the agenda. Intensive research has shown that this is not the case. The number of items on the agenda may affect the consistency of the bullshit, i.e., whether it is strained or condensed, but it has no bearing on on the weight. This situation is covered by the Viscosity Corollary to Simonitch's Law. Simply stated, this corollary reads: The viscosity of the bullshit of any meaning is inversely proportional to the square root of the number of items on the agenda, or:
Vbs = Qbs/square root of N
It may seem surpriging that viscosity varies inversely. Nevertheless, it has been conclusively shown that the fewer the number of items, the more concentrated the bullshit. Nor should this surprise anyone. When the items are many, people feel the need to continually move along. On occasion the result has barely attained an impoverished gruel.
Exhaustive research has failed to identify any other factors governing the Law. For a while I believed that the relationships among the various people attending a meeting might produce some effect on the production of bullshit. For example, I thought it possible for people with longstanding relationships of mutual respect, even friendship, to meet and be able to deal with problems, come to conclusions and make decisions. Sadly enough, this is not the case. Once a question is identified as an item on an agenda, its fate is sealed. The only observable effect of the relationship on the progress of a meeting is an increase in the number of sarcastic side comments. But the meeting goes on as if this were unimportant. Thus, meetings may vary as a matter of form, but their content is absolutely predictable.
It is the question of form that has most confused social scientists investigating this field. This is especially true when one attempts to define the character of meetings with large numbers in attendance. Such meetings generally appear to operate according to the rules distinctly different from what I have described. The appearance, however, is deceptive, and Simonitch's Law is absolutely applicable.
The form of large meetings is determined by a phenomenon known as Divine Transference. Simple transference, whereby dominant persons expostulate the bullshit of passive persons has been discussed above. Divine Transference is essentially a massive concentration of nonsense. Virtually all the bullshit brought to the meeting is transferred to the leader for appropriate expression. Up to 10 percent of the bullshit may be expressed by an assistant seated behind the leader, and to his left. The leader, however, has responsibility for carrying the total load. The inevitable question-and-answer exchange is merely the mechanism for carrying out the transference.
The question arises when the phenomenon of Divine Transference begins to take hold. My studies show that a solitary leader can take charge anytime a meeting involves more than 15 people. Any meeting involving more than 25 people is by definition a large meeting dominated by Divine Transference. The process is a gradual one, but this figure is the upper limit.
A meeting takes a meandering course until the designated dominant persons have expostulated to their fullest extent. When the point is reached that all the requisite bullshit is developed, there is a need to commemorate the event with a recognizable signal. This usually means an agreement that a committee will be appointed to deal with the problem. In cases in which the meeting is one by a committee so appointed, the point is reached when the committee sets the date for its next meeting.
From a stylistic point of view, a most interesting kind of meeting is one called for the purpose of deciding whether a committee should be appointed. This calls forth a concentrated debate on the end point, and there are three possible outcomes: a committee may be appointed, a committee may not be appointed, or a committee may be appointed to decide if a committee should be appointed. Purists prefer the third alternative.
However, this is simply a question of quality and preference. It does not affect the operations of the Law. Any meeting, dull or inspired, produces bullshit proportionate to the number of people present. Quantity is a constant; quality, a rare flower. My favorite kind of meeting is one called to decide if a problem exists. In every such instance, the only acceptable outcome is the appointment of a committee to investigate the issue.
The final question is delineating the character of meetings is one of length. The best information available indicates that the length of a meeting is determined by bladder capacity. Obviously in large meetings the bladder capacity of the leader is the determining factor. In smaller, more loosely-structured meetings, variations creep in. A dominant person with a weak bladder can quickly curtail a meeting if he or she leaves the room and no one moves in to occupy the vacancy. On the other hand, if a number of passive persons leave to find relief, the bullshit factor is greatly lessened, and the meeting may become desultory. The question has not been thoroughly resolved, and awaits more research.
- Brian Simonitch, 1970's
