In his fantastic book On Bullshit, the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt says a bullshitter “does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”Maybe that has something to do with why Stephen Colbert’s bullshit synonym “truthiness” has hit the linguistic spot like few words in recent years: It names the degraded condition of truth in media, government, nonfiction, and elsewhere. “Truthiness” has been so successful that it’s begun fathering children-“fameiness,” “referenciness,” and others-that demonstrate the Colbert suffix, a timely new meaning of an old word ending that allows writers to spoof and skewer our regular diet of drivel and twaddle.But before a suffix could be named after him, Colbert had to coin “truthiness,” which debuted during a segment called “The Word” on the very first episode of The Colbert Report on October 17, 2005. Colbert’s Bill-O’Reilly-esque, attack-poodle character introduced “truthiness” and became preemptively indignant over the word’s reception, in a now semi-famous speech: “Now I’m sure some of the Word Police, the wordinistas over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word.’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true, or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I want to say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.” Colbert finished by saying, “The truthiness is anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you.”Despite his disparagement of wordinistas, “truthiness” might never have caught on if the American Dialect Society’s linguists, lexicographers, and other wordmongers hadn’t voted it 2005’s Word of the Year. (I was part of the meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where it happened, and made a few pro-“truthiness” comments that-I swear by Odin’s raven-inspired some head-nodding and swayed some voters, so I’ll take a nickel’s worth of huzzahs for the word’s success.) Much more credit is due to Steve Kleinedler, the senior editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, who nominated “truthiness,” along with the less gripping Colbert coinage, “grippy.” The final vote was between “truthiness” and “Katrina”-two words proposing opposite views of what a word of the year should be. Since 2005 was the year of the Katrina disaster, that name was depressingly prominent, while only a rabid Colbert-head would have heard of “truthiness,” which was embraced for its mega-relevance, not its mini-success.When “truthiness”was announced the winner, at least one disgruntled wordman stormed out of the room in a cloud of peevishness, presumably annoyed by the fuzzy meaning of this Colbertism. Truthfully, the meaning of “truthiness” is a bit up for grabs, perhaps appropriately so-it was defined by the ADS as “what one wishes to be the truth regardless of the facts” and by member Michael Adams as “truthy, not facty.” Colbert himself, meanwhile, has admonished, “You don’t look up ‘truthiness’ in a book, you look it up in your gut.” Hours after the ADS vote, at a restaurant with some fellow wordfolk, our telling of the victory of “truthiness” prompted a classic who-farted-in-church face from the waitstaff. The rest of the world reacted more kindly, as this distinctively 21st-century brand of bullshit moved from pet word of language mavens to a successful word that has appeared in a metric truckload of news stories, replaced “truth” in dozens of clichés (the truthiness hurts, you can’t handle the truthiness, etc.), and won Word of the Year twice more in 2006 by users of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and dictionary.com.Though Colbert has said “Truthiness is a word I pulled right out of my keister,” he wasn’t the first to do so. Under the entry “truthy,” the Oxford English Dictionary has an 1824 example of “truthiness” as “truthfulness”: “Everyone who knows her is aware of her truthiness.” Likewise, The Century Dictionary’s 1832 citation has none of the disparaging quality of Colbert’s version: “Truthiness is a habit, like every other virtue.”It’s Colbert’s nonvirtuous sense of the -y suffix-and his new meaning of “truthy” as not truthy at all-that’s inspired some recently coined words, demonstrating what the Stanford University linguist Arnold Zwicky has called the Colbert suffix. The most notable case is probably “fame-iness,” a type of devalued, insubstantial fame epitomized by Paris Hilton and discussed by Meghan Daum in the Los Angeles Times. Zwicky has also found examples of “referenciness” (a quality possessed by writing that appears to contain solid references, but upon closer examination, those sources are actually bogus or beside the point) and “faithy-ness” (an insincere pretense to religious faith, endemic to politicians). Elsewhere, I’ve spotted “democraciness,” “innocentiness,” “integritiness,” “intelligentiness,” “outraginess,” “victoriness,” and “youthiness,” all of which have the Colbert flavor.Bullshitters and truthiness-tellers may not care about the truth, but clearly someone does, or the Colbert suffix wouldn’t be catching on. This trend is a handy tool for pointing out the emptiness of abstract nouns-those puffed-up, gassy, focus-group-propelled buzzwords that are so prone to being abused. The spread of “truthiness” and the Colbert suffix are also reminders that language is a mass phenomenon. “Doh” is in the OED too-not because Homer Simpson uses it, but because lots of people do. Dictionaries are books everyone writes, and the wordinistas follow our lead. I’d say we’re doing the language a favor if we keep pointing out educationiness, journalisminess, ethicaliness, and other destructive or preposterous farces. By doing so, maybe we’ll make actual education, journalism, and ethics easier to locate too.

More-iness:

fame-inessFeb. 17, 2007, Meghan Daum, Los Angeles Times“Now that the mystique of so many celebrities is rooted less in their accomplishments thanin their ability to get our attention by provoking our disgust, perhaps it’s not fame they’re offering but ‘fame-iness.’”faithy-nessJune 7, 2007, Karen Cohen, letter to the editor, The New York Times“How ironic that in the country founded on separation of church and state, candidates must compete with one another over their ‘faithy-ness.’ Their stands on issues like the Iraq war, poverty, health care and global warming are … independent of the amount of faith in a supreme being they profess.”referencinessFeb. 12, 2007, Ben Goldacre, The Guardian“The scholarliness of [Gillian McKeith’s] work is a thing to behold: she produces lengthy documents that have an air of ‘referenciness,’ with nice little superscript numbers … but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it’s shocking how often they aren’t what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text.”sciencinessJuly 1, 2007, The Yorkshire Ranter blog”British politics is afflicted with scienciness, by analogy to ‘truthiness.’ Thinking about the obsession with biometric quackery, I realised that over the last 10 years we’ve been governed by people who like the idea of science, but not anything specifically scientific.”youthinessJan. 4, 2007, The Boomer Chronicles blog”I still see myself as young no matter what. Even when that extra crease appeared on my eyelid-a telltale sign of middle age-I persisted in my belief that I was young and vital. So, if Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s popular Colbert Report has ‘truthiness,’ I want: youthiness.”

  • Bank of America foreclosed on a couple’s home by mistake. So they got a court order and showed up to foreclose on the bank.
    Photo credit: CanvaThe exterior of a bank and a happy couple reading a document.
    ,

    Bank of America foreclosed on a couple’s home by mistake. So they got a court order and showed up to foreclose on the bank.

    When the bank ignored them for months, the couple got a court order and showed up with a moving truck to take the bank’s furniture instead.

    Warren and Maureen Nyerges bought their home in Naples, Florida, in 2009. They paid cash. No mortgage, no bank involved, nothing. Bank of America foreclosed on it anyway.

    The bank had confused them with the previous owner, who actually did have an outstanding loan. A quick check of their own records would have cleared this up. According to the Nyerges’ attorney Todd Allen, it would have taken about 15 minutes. Nobody checked. The foreclosure went through.

    Warren called branch managers. He wrote certified letters to the bank’s president. Nothing came back. He eventually hired Allen, who got the foreclosure reversed within two months. The court also agreed that Bank of America should pay Warren’s legal fees of about $2,500. The bank was notified. Five months went by. No payment.

    At that point, reports ABC News, Warren went back to court and obtained a writ of execution: a court order giving him the legal authority to seize Bank of America’s assets to satisfy the debt. On June 3, 2011, he showed up at the local branch with two sheriff’s deputies and a moving truck.

    The deputies delivered the message to the branch manager: pay the $2,500, or they start loading furniture. After a call to superiors, the bank produced a check. They misspelled Warren’s name on it.

    Attorney Allen noted that Bank of America apologized for the payment delay but never for the wrongful foreclosure itself. A spokesperson eventually issued a statement: “We’re truly sorry for the series of unfortunate circumstances that Mr. Nyerges experienced.”

    The moving truck left empty. The deputies left with a check. Warren and Maureen still own their home.

  • Humans nearly vanished 800,000 years ago, revealing a quiet truth: most family lines disappear
    Photo credit: CanvaA group of people hiking in the mountains.

    There was a moment in human history when our entire existence may have desperately clung to a thousand or so people. A DNA-based study found that between 800,000 and 900,000 years ago, our ancestors experienced a severe population crash.

    This wasn’t humans dealing with a giant meteor like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. It was a much slower stretch during which humanity teetered on the brink of disappearing completely. This bottleneck in the human gene pool, comprising roughly 1,280 breeding individuals, lasted about 117,000 years.

    population, genomes, Ice Age, Early-Middle Pleistocene
    Removing representation of a human population group.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Human population levels plummet

    According to Scientific American, the study analyzed modern human genomes to piece together what the early human population looked like. By constructing a complex family tree of genes from present-day humans, researchers were able to identify important evolutionary events.

    During the Early-Middle Pleistocene, a period within the Ice Age, humans faced severe weather and intense glacial cycles. Most human ancestors may have died out, clearing the path for a new human species to take their place.

    Focusing on Africa, the study showed that 813,000 years ago, human populations began to recover and grow again. With an estimated two-thirds of genetic diversity potentially lost, traits like brain size appear to have been among the important features that survived. “It represents a key period of time during the evolution of humans,” population geneticist and study co-author Ziqian Hao said. “So there are many important questions to be answered.”

    DNA, genomes sequence, human existence, heredity
    DNA genome sequences.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Understanding evolution and ancestry

    What we know about evolution reveals a different story than a simple, continuous line of human improvement. Over time, genetic lines disappear—not dramatically all at once. It’s a slow and steady change, generation after generation.

    Human existence isn’t inevitable. Species strength or technical advancement doesn’t guarantee the future or explain our past. It’s contingent on narrow, accidental circumstances. A 2021 study showed that human evolution is better seen as a continuous flow of incremental fragments over time. Categorizing people into races and groups oversimplifies human history.

    species strength, evolutionary improvement, genetic lines, technical advancement
    A diverse group of wooden figures.
    Photo credit: Canva

    What does the bottleneck study say about us?

    The study reveals humanity didn’t simply decline; it nearly collapsed. With over 98% of our genetic diversity erased, entire branches of the human family tree permanently ceased to exist.

    It’s quite possible that if even a few more of those genetic lines had ended, human history could have vanished with them. Most branches of life don’t continue. What we witness today reflects biological persistence and countless moments that could have gone another way.

    A 2024 study conducted five billion simulations, revealing that as a species’ population shrinks, its risk of extinction rises. Even stable groups can quickly collapse if their numbers suddenly drop low enough.

    A 2025 study found that small populations erode genetic diversity. Isolation increases inbreeding and elevates the risk of extinction. Once a lineage shrinks, recovery becomes vastly more challenging over time. Long-term survival is an exception, not the guiding rule.

    Humanity likes to think of itself as the result of an incredibly unique progression. Perhaps studies like these suggest that we are actually what remains when everything else disappears. The reason any of us live today comes down to a small group of ancient outlasters: persevering individuals whose genetic lines are the building blocks of every human living today.

  • A millionaire swapped lives with a struggling family for a week on a $230 budget. The money wasn’t what broke him.
    Photo credit: CanvaDepressed man looks at his laptop.

    Matt Fiddes runs a multi-million dollar martial arts franchise in Britain. His family’s weekly budget runs around $2,058. He’d never really looked at a price tag before buying something.

    For a social experiment documented by the YouTube channel Only Human, the Fiddes family swapped lives with the Leamons (Andy, Kim, their two kids, and two dogs) who get by on $230 a week. Kim had a life-saving surgery after an accident and now lives with Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome. They lost their savings. Andy works alone to support the family.

    On day one of the swap, Matt learned his weekly budget was $230. “That basically fills up the fuel tank of my car,” he said.

    wealth inequality, poverty, social experiment, class, viral video
    A man calculating his budget on his laptop. Photo credit: Canva

    What followed was a week of grocery bills he had to think about, a neighborhood with nothing much in it, and night shifts, something he’d never worked in his life. His wife Moniqe cried when she heard about Kim’s condition from the Leamons’ friends.

    By the end of the week, Matt had something to say that was harder to shrug off than the budget: “I feel guilty; no one should live like this.”

    He also said the week brought his family closer together. The Fiddes left a gift behind for the Leamons when they returned home: a mobility scooter for Kim, so she could get around on her own.

    The Leamons, meanwhile, spent the week in the Fiddes’ house taking their kids to a theme park and doing a little shopping experiencing, briefly, what it feels like when money isn’t a constant calculation.

    One YouTube commenter put it plainly: “I feel this was a much-needed vacation for the poor family and a grounding experience for the rich family.” That’s about right.

    You can watch the full documentary here:

Explore More Stories

Voices

Elementary teacher shares the 3 biggest mistakes modern parents need to fix immediately

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Health

Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it

Money

Gen Z was asked if $75,000 a year counts as poor. Their answers say a lot about America right now.