On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Discuss what we all already knew

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#1  Postby Rumraket » Apr 25, 2017 11:24 am

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.


http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

Discuss if for no other reason that it's funny to see the term bullshit used in an academic publication. And that good examples of pseudo-profound bullshit used come from Deepity Choprak. :lol:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#2  Postby jamest » Apr 25, 2017 9:30 pm

This discussion has occurred many times before in various contexts. The bottom-line is that 'empirical evidence' has no metaphysical value and therefore cannot be used to judge the metaphysical value of any claim other than those associated with empirical values, such as "The Earth is 6000 years old".

This is old hat for veterans. You should be beyond repeating such nonsense by now, squire. Really.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16139
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#3  Postby archibald » Apr 25, 2017 10:19 pm

Image
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9012
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#4  Postby archibald » Apr 25, 2017 10:31 pm

"...both ontological confusions and religious belief were positively correlated with bullshit receptivity."

http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

Well, at least empirical evidence can be used to measure some things. :evilgrin:
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9012
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#5  Postby jamest » Apr 25, 2017 11:43 pm

archibald wrote:Image

Go fuck yourself squire. Smooch ;) .
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16139
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#6  Postby Rumraket » Apr 26, 2017 6:10 am

Nobody is your squire and you're actually a child.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#7  Postby Animavore » Apr 26, 2017 6:13 am

Every single time I read the word "ontolog(ical)y" I have to look it up. It's like the word just won't stick.

There must be an epistemological reason for that.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#8  Postby Pulsar » Apr 26, 2017 6:50 am

- Dragons do not do well in captivity
- How do you know this?
- That's what I do. I drink and I know things.

And people say that season 6 was the best one.
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4605
Age: 40
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#9  Postby Animavore » Apr 26, 2017 7:04 am

I just assumed he knew because he had spent time in King's Landing where you could see the degeneration of captive dragons over time in the skulls that once lined the walls, and, of course, education, and just wasn't arsed explaining.

I don't think it was supposed to be pseudo-profound or anything. Did you post this in the right thread, even? :scratch:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#10  Postby TopCat » Apr 26, 2017 7:21 am

Animavore wrote:Every single time I read the word "ontolog(ical)y" I have to look it up. It's like the word just won't stick.

There must be an epistemological reason for that.

I thought it was just me, except that I have three...

Ontology, epistemology, and that other one, you know, erm...

Edit:

Teleology! I found it at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ologies
Last edited by TopCat on Apr 26, 2017 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
TopCat
 
Posts: 520
Age: 54
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#11  Postby Rumraket » Apr 26, 2017 7:24 am

Animavore wrote:Every single time I read the word "ontolog(ical)y" I have to look it up. It's like the word just won't stick.

There must be an epistemological reason for that.

It's because it's often total bullshit.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#12  Postby Animavore » Apr 26, 2017 7:39 am

Rumraket wrote:
Animavore wrote:Every single time I read the word "ontolog(ical)y" I have to look it up. It's like the word just won't stick.

There must be an epistemological reason for that.

It's because it's often total bullshit.

That doesn't explain why the word keeps eluding me. I've no problem remembering words like theology, homeopathy, ideology, and the names of other 'subjects' of vacuous content.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#13  Postby Rumraket » Apr 26, 2017 8:56 am

In truth I have the same problem. But my answer was serious. I think vacuousness comes in degrees. In doing the philosophy of ontology, particularly when the word is used, denotes the most vacuous shit ever. It doesn't mean anything and has no relation to anything.

Seriously, look at this utter bullshit.

Even the title is a form of bullshit. "A Paradigm Theory of Existence: Onto-Theology Vindicated"

It's in tomes like that you find terms such as "the relata of the property exemplification nexus". Consider that a man sat down and wrote a whole book full of absolute fucking shit. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#14  Postby Animavore » Apr 26, 2017 9:09 am

I'm hoping that Google translate has messed up the Danish rather than they're words written by a person.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#15  Postby juju7 » Apr 26, 2017 9:29 am

Rumraket wrote:In truth I have the same problem. But my answer was serious. I think vacuousness comes in degrees. In doing the philosophy of ontology, particularly when the word is used, denotes the most vacuous shit ever. It doesn't mean anything and has no relation to anything.

Seriously, look at this utter bullshit.

Even the title is a form of bullshit. "A Paradigm Theory of Existence: Onto-Theology Vindicated"

It's in tomes like that you find terms such as "the relata of the property exemplification nexus". Consider that a man sat down and wrote a whole book full of absolute fucking shit. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on.


More precisely taurifecal metafactoidality
User avatar
juju7
 
Posts: 774

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#16  Postby archibald » Apr 27, 2017 10:43 am

aka rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 9012
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#17  Postby Manticore » Apr 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Rumraket wrote: It isn't worth the paper it is printed on.


Depends on the quality of the paper. Is it nice and soft and absorbent?
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#18  Postby Animavore » Apr 27, 2017 12:56 pm

It's probably smooth and glossy and more likely to smear and spread than wipe.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38818
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

#19  Postby Manticore » Apr 27, 2017 1:51 pm

Anybody got a bull we could try it on?
The existence of just one racist is proof that there exists at least one person who could be reasonably classified as sub-human.
User avatar
Manticore
 
Posts: 206

Country: Tanzania
Tanzania (tz)
Print view this post


Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest