From “Bullshido” to “Screen-Scare-Do”: When Confidence Replaces Evidence in Digital Literacy and Online Safety

Caveat: for close to 20 years, Darren travelled internationally to present and teach on the topics of self defence and street survival to both civilian and law enforcement audiences. It’s from this perspective that we provide this article to draw a correlation between what he saw with some “experts” in the martial arts community, to some “experts” in the digital literacy and internet safety community.     

In martial arts, there is a well known term for fake expertise, it is known colloquially as “bullshido”. It describes systems that look impressive, sound authoritative, and promise protection, but collapse the moment they are tested against reality. The techniques are often wrapped in jargon, dramatic demonstrations, and appeals to what they claim to be techniques based on scientifically proven fact. The danger is not just that they do not work, the danger is that people trust them when it matters most.

We see a similar pattern has quietly emerged in parts of digital literacy and internet safety advocacy. We call it “Screen-Scare-Do.”

Screen-Scare-Do follows the same playbook as bullshido. It relies on fear, certainty, and authority rather than evidence, context, and humility. It presents itself as protective, but often leaves parents and caregivers more anxious and less informed than when they started.

Bullshido instructors often claim insider knowledge. They say their techniques are too dangerous for real competition or too advanced to be tested and evaluated openly. In Screen-Scare-Do, the equivalent claim is, “The research is clear,” followed by a headline or statistic that is rarely examined in full.

In both cases, questioning is discouraged. Doubt is framed as ignorance or denial. Parents and caregivers who ask for nuance are sometimes told they are minimizing harm or failing to protect their child by asking such questions. Confidence replaces curiosity.

Screen-Scare-Do is not defined by concern about youth safety. Concern is legitimate and necessary. Screen-Scare-Do is defined by how concern is communicated and leveraged.

Screen-Scare-Do is characterized by several recurring traits:

Absolute language

Claims are framed as settled and unquestionable. Phrases like “the research is clear” are used without acknowledging disagreement, limitations, or uncertainty within the literature.

Selective evidence

Single studies, preliminary findings, or correlational data are elevated into broad causal claims, often without discussion of confounding variables or contradictory research.

Credential signalling over transparency

Professional titles, follower counts, or media presence are emphasized more than methodology, replication, or peer review.

Fear-based urgency

Messaging suggests immediate and catastrophic harm unless drastic action is taken, reducing space for proportional risk assessment or thoughtful decision making.

Discouragement of questioning

Parents and caregivers who ask for nuance are framed as minimizing harm or failing to protect their children.

Like Bullshido, Screen-Scare-Do looks convincing, sounds protective, and it often spreads quickly. Its effectiveness comes from emotional certainty, not from stress-tested evidence.

Bullshido thrives on fear of violence. Screen-Scare-Do thrives on fear of technology. Headlines warn that screens are “damaging kid’s brains,” that an entire generation is at risk, or that catastrophe is inevitable unless drastic action is taken immediately.

Fear short circuits critical thinking. When parents and caregivers are scared, they are less likely to ask whether a claim is accurate, representative, or being overstated. That emotional leverage is not accidental. It is effective, even when the underlying evidence is weak or misrepresented.

Fake martial arts often rely on choreographed demonstrations where students cooperate to make techniques look powerful. Screen-Scare-Do does something similar with selective data. Charts are shown without context. Correlations are presented as causation. Complex findings are reduced to a single alarming takeaway.

What is missing in both cases is stress testing. Does the claim hold up across multiple studies? Does it account for confounding variables? Does it reflect how real families and real youth actually use technology?

In bullshido, rank and costume replace proven skill. In Screen-Scare-Do, professional titles or follower counts often stand in for rigorous methodology. A claim can spread widely simply because it comes from someone perceived as credible, even if the evidence does not support the conclusion being drawn.

As an example, recently an online safety advocate with a significant following describes themself as a “neuroscientist.” When we checked their digital dossier and resume, we couldn’t find any credible evidence of a master’s degree or PhD in neuroscience, no listings in major academic indexes, and no peer-reviewed publications under their name. In short, nothing that would support the title in a scientific or academic sense.

Subsequently, on doing a background search on this expert, we learned that unlike titles such as psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, or engineer, the word “neuroscientist” isn’t a protected professional designation in Canada, the United States, the UK, or most of Europe. That means you don’t need:

• a PhD

• published research

• lab experience

• a university affiliation

Anyone can use the label “neuroscientist” for branding or marketing. However, in legitimate scientific settings, a neuroscientist is someone who holds a Doctorate in a relevant field, publishes peer-reviewed work, and conducts research in a lab, university, hospital, or research institution.

In this case, the person’s post offered an opinion that leaned heavily on a study with dubious methodology that has been challenged by several well respected researchers who actually hold PhDs, and are subject matter experts in the field.

For parents and caregivers, this is especially tricky. Trust matters. Titles matter. When someone identifies as a “neuroscientist”, it brings a shingle of academic providence that is often respected by a parent or caregiver. However, such providence should be questioned, and should never excuse the absence of due diligence, especially when advice affects a youth or teen’s wellbeing.

The harm in both bullshido and Screen-Scare-Do is not just misinformation or disinformation, it’s misplaced confidence. Parents and caregivers may feel they are taking the “right” steps based on alarming narratives, while overlooking more effective, evidence based strategies such as relationship building, skill development, and ongoing guidance when it comes to youth, teens, and their use of technology.

Balanced digital literacy is not flashy. It does not promise simple fixes or absolute safety. It operates differently:

• It acknowledges uncertainty and evolving evidence.

• It distinguishes correlation from causation.

• It situates risk within broader developmental, social, and environmental contexts.

• It treats parents as thinking partners, not emotional targets.

• It focuses on teaching youth and teens how to think, pause, question, and contextualize what they encounter online.

Parents and caregivers deserve better than fear driven narratives. They deserve clarity, precision, and honesty about what research does and does not say. Just as responsible martial arts training values testing, feedback, and humility, responsible digital safety education values evidence, nuance, and ongoing learning. This approach does not deny harm. It addresses it with proportion, clarity, and respect for how young people actually grow and learn in today’s onlife world.

When something sounds absolute, urgent, and unquestionable, that is the moment to slow down. Real protection, whether physical or digital, is built on understanding and good evidence based research, not overblown and misrepresented research.

Screen-Scare-Do may look convincing. Like bullshido, it may even feel reassuring at first. The real work is choosing approaches grounded in facts, context, and respect for how youth and teens actually grow and learn in today’s onlife world!

Digital Food For Thought

The White Hatter

Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech