Behind almost every successful politician and businessman is a strong communications strategist. For Boris Johnson, that’s Dominic Cummings; for Mark Rutte, that’s him; and CEOs rely on the services of specialized consultants.

Communication strategy is about manipulating stories to achieve certain outcomes. Stories are the way we humans interpret the world, and in doing so they guide our decisions. Good stories nestle in your brain, even without you being aware of it. Develop the power to shape such a story to your liking, and you develop the power to influence perception and decision in a radical way.

When stories are so powerful, and you become adept at writing them, it may seem obvious to use such a powerful tool to spread lies. But in doing so, you break the golden rule of never telling untruths. The moment you are transparent and informative, leaving nothing out, being testable, your stories will build a reputation that will make future information even more trustworthy.

Some politicians currently seem to be able to get away with telling lies just fine; they don’t even try their best to hide them. Another group of politicians and CEOs do follow the golden rule. However, they have found another way you can influence sentiment despite unfavorable information; a waterfall of information and feigned transparency.

This is a trick that Jordan Peterson knows well. The controversial Canadian psychologist gives popular lectures in which he ties together a wide variety of sources in a pseudo-intellectual manner. He poses transparently, cites all the sources, and forms a narrative from them that at first glance makes sense. Pull the thread of logic, however, and you will find that there appears to be little logic. Loose, disjointed sources are linked together, not once as a metaphor, but incessantly. In doing so, you create a dangerous edifice of stories stacked on top of each other that seem logical, and therefore not easily tested. The result is that the point of the story speaks vaguely from the examples, but is usually further emphasized by the speaker. All that construction to make the “summary” sink in, without real testing.

I see that form of communication as a great danger. Not stories whose factuality is false, but stories behind which there is sham logic and sham transparency. You see it in Peterson’s lectures, but also in recent speeches by Thierry Baudet or Boris Johnson, for example. There is no string to what they say, only the sentiment that they are right remains prevalent.

What can we do about it? First, it is important to be aware of the emotional impact a story has on our brain. That said, it is good to guard against excessive transparency, and always test the logic of (the building blocks of) a story. In this way, keep control of your understanding of the world, and thus the decisions you make.