The Curiosity Shop with Brené Brown and Adam GrantBS Disclaimers, Invisible Armies, and the Importance of the Words We Choose
Brené Brown on how words hide accountability: invisible armies and bullshit disclaimers unpacked.
In this episode of The Curiosity Shop with Brené Brown and Adam Grant, featuring Brené Brown and Adam Grant, BS Disclaimers, Invisible Armies, and the Importance of the Words We Choose explores how words hide accountability: invisible armies and bullshit disclaimers unpacked They define the “Invisible Army” as using vague collective claims (“we all think/feel”) to boost leverage while dodging personal ownership, and distinguish it from responsibly reporting observations or aggregated concerns.
At a glance
WHAT IT’S REALLY ABOUT
How words hide accountability: invisible armies and bullshit disclaimers unpacked
- They define the “Invisible Army” as using vague collective claims (“we all think/feel”) to boost leverage while dodging personal ownership, and distinguish it from responsibly reporting observations or aggregated concerns.
- They unpack “bullshit disclaimers” (e.g., “not to be rude, but…”) as attempts to pre-empt consequences and shift the burden of managing harm onto the listener.
- They connect both patterns to psychological safety, power dynamics, and identity—showing how low-safety cultures and biased evaluations push people toward indirect speech while also making that indirectness costly.
- They separate responsibility (internal ownership of one’s actions/words) from accountability (being answerable to others), arguing that healthy conversations require both.
- They emphasize nuance: some hedges can be legitimate signals of openness and care, but manipulative hedges and fake collective representation erode trust and intensify groupthink.
IDEAS WORTH REMEMBERING
5 ideasDrop the royal “we” unless you can name the source and your stance.
Saying “we all think/feel” reads as manipulative or groupthink; instead, use “I’m observing…” or explicitly state who you spoke with and whether you personally agree.
In low psychological safety, represent patterns—don’t impersonate a crowd.
It can be courageous to raise concerns others fear voicing, but do it as an accountable messenger (“Here’s what I’m hearing/seeing”) rather than claiming to speak for everyone’s beliefs.
“Not to be rude/critical, but…” is a responsibility trapdoor.
These openings often signal the speaker expects to be harmful and wants immunity; they also prime defensiveness and make the interaction feel adversarial before content even lands.
Interrupt early to prevent the disclaimer from doing its damage.
They recommend a “preemptive pause”: stop the sentence at the disclaimer and ask for a more productive framing, or inquire why that harmful framing even entered the speaker’s mind.
Use relationship-appropriate interventions: care with insiders, caution with strangers.
With people you trust, lean into curiosity and connection (“Why does ‘tear you down’ come up for you?”); with unknown or unsafe contexts, clearly signal that disclaimers won’t exempt accountability.
WORDS WORTH SAVING
5 quotesWhen you start using invisible armies, you are taking small collections of fire and pouring gasoline on them.
— Brené Brown
When someone says, "I don't mean, I don't mean to be critical, but," what they're saying is I'm getting ready to be very critical, and I do not wanna be held accountable for that behavior.
— Brené Brown
Brandolini's bullshit asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
— Brené Brown
Responsibility is personal and accountability is interpersonal.
— Adam Grant
This is the gauntlet of bullshit masculinity, is that if I'm direct, I'm an aggressive bitch, and if I hedge and use disclaimers, then I'm wishy-washy and lack executive presence.
— Brené Brown
QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THIS EPISODE
5 questionsWhat exact phrasing would you recommend to replace “we all think/feel” when you truly have broad agreement but can’t name people due to fear?
They define the “Invisible Army” as using vague collective claims (“we all think/feel”) to boost leverage while dodging personal ownership, and distinguish it from responsibly reporting observations or aggregated concerns.
Where’s the line between “reporting what I’m hearing” and “claiming to represent everyone”—what cues help a listener tell the difference?
They unpack “bullshit disclaimers” (e.g., “not to be rude, but…”) as attempts to pre-empt consequences and shift the burden of managing harm onto the listener.
How would you advise a manager to respond when someone brings an Invisible Army—what’s a psychologically safe way to ask “who is we?” without punishing the messenger?
They connect both patterns to psychological safety, power dynamics, and identity—showing how low-safety cultures and biased evaluations push people toward indirect speech while also making that indirectness costly.
In a tense moment, what are 2–3 “preemptive pause” scripts that stop a bullshit disclaimer while still keeping the conversation open?
They separate responsibility (internal ownership of one’s actions/words) from accountability (being answerable to others), arguing that healthy conversations require both.
Do anonymous surveys improve psychological safety, or can they become a crutch that prevents leaders from building direct-feedback cultures? How should leaders interpret a big gap between anonymous feedback and face-to-face feedback?
They emphasize nuance: some hedges can be legitimate signals of openness and care, but manipulative hedges and fake collective representation erode trust and intensify groupthink.
Chapter Breakdown
Setting the stakes: being right vs getting it right (and two “insidious” tactics)
Brené Brown opens by declaring she’s “vested in [her] rightness,” framing a spirited debate about subtle communication moves that erode trust. They tee up two patterns Brené sees as especially toxic: “The Invisible Army” and “bullshit disclaimers.”
The “Invisible Army”: when “we all think” becomes a shield
Brené defines the Invisible Army as invoking a vague collective—“we all,” “everyone,” “people are saying”—to add weight while avoiding personal ownership. She argues it’s corrosive in both workplaces and families because it inflates rumors and blocks direct, adult conversation.
Psychological safety nuance: messenger vs mind-reader
Adam initially defends “we” language as prosocial signaling and a survival strategy in low-safety cultures. They clarify a key distinction: responsibly reporting what you’re observing/hearing differs from claiming you can speak for what everyone feels and believes.
Union steward roots, groupthink risk, and credibility loss
Brené connects her stance to her training as a union steward: bring observed problems without claiming to embody everyone’s feelings. Adam adds that even if “we all think” is true, it suggests groupthink—making leaders distrust both the spokesperson and the group.
Anonymous surveys and 360s: visibility without a “commander”
They explore whether anonymous feedback tools are another kind of Invisible Army. Brené distinguishes anonymity (individual data points) from someone claiming authority over a hidden crowd, while both warn about false anonymity and poorly designed 360 reviews.
Bullshit disclaimers: “Not to be rude, but…” as an accountability trapdoor
Brené introduces “bullshit disclaimers” as prefaces that grant permission to be hurtful while dodging responsibility: “I don’t mean to be critical…” Adam agrees they often backfire by putting listeners on guard and trying to preempt reasonable reactions.
How to interrupt in the moment: Brandolini’s principle and “preemptive pauses”
Using Brandolini’s bullshit asymmetry principle, Brené argues it takes far more energy to refute manipulative framing than to produce it—so you must interrupt early. They role-play interventions that stop the disclaimer before the “shitty part,” forcing responsibility back onto the speaker.
Curiosity vs accountability styles—and when each fits
They notice their different instincts: Brené leads with accountability (“proceed with caution”), while Adam leans into curiosity (“why did that framing occur?”). Brené realizes Adam’s approach fits established relationships, whereas her firmer stance protects against strangers or public call-outs.
Gender, power, and “permission” to be harsh without consequences
Adam raises how gender stereotypes shape which interventions are “allowed” or interpreted as competent. Brené emphasizes the deeper issue: certain groups—especially men in some contexts—are granted more leeway to be cutting or rude without accountability, often especially toward women.
Responsibility vs accountability: personal ownership and interpersonal answerability
They define responsibility as internal ownership of actions and accountability as being answerable to others. Brené crystallizes the goal of stopping disclaimers: require the speaker to take responsibility up front, while making clear they will be held accountable for impact.
Non-bullshit hedges: openness, collaboration, and the research case
Adam distinguishes harmful disclaimers from hedges that show intellectual humility (“I might be wrong… what do you think?”). He cites research on “powerless speech” and influence strategies, while noting the uncomfortable truth: these tactics can be especially necessary for marginalized people in biased environments.
Brené’s pushback: authenticity, equity, and the cost of contorting yourself
Brené rejects using hedges that don’t match genuine intent, naming the “gauntlet” where women are labeled aggressive if direct and weak if tentative. She argues research may identify what’s effective without interrogating the inequities that make such contortions necessary—and calls for relationships where power and vulnerability can coexist.
Applied examples: negotiating, asking directly, and choosing clear caring language
They discuss a negotiation line that improved outcomes for women and unpack Brené’s preference for grounded statements like “I think I’m worth more.” Brené also shares a simple model for respectful directness—asking the driver how tipping works—showing curiosity as a bridge between clarity and care.
Closing takeaways: make armies visible, keep disclaimers heartfelt, practice the craft
Adam cautions against blanket bans on hedges and urges judging ideas by clarity and care rather than “strong vs weak” language. Brené summarizes her learning: she gets hooked by un-owned language, resents doing the labor of accountability, and believes nuance, alignment, and practice are essential to hard conversations.
EVERY SPOKEN WORD
Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript
Get more out of YouTube videos.
High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.
Add to Chrome