• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
This is seemingly a well thought of paper that could be of use for those of you looking at good methodology.
It is open access, AND data is even included. :rolleyes:;):whistle::nerd:
This is a Canadian study, peer- reviewed and published in the Journal 'Judgement and Decision Making'.

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


Abstract:


Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingen- uous) 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 bull- shit 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 re- sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

Keywords: bullshit, bullshit detection, dual-process theories, analytic thinking, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial ideation, complementary and alternative medicine.
 
Last edited:

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull- shit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief).
I wonder if a large number of today's journalists fall into this category -- intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief. Theoretically, journalists should be trained as expert bullshit detectors, but in these days of paid media campaigners, press releases, and pass-it-through journalism it seems to me that pseudo-profundity and high-flown but meaningless language is given a lot of weight by journalists. "It sounds good" often seems more important to them than "It makes sense."
 

PeterPositive

Senior Member
Messages
1,426
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingen- uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation.

Au contrarie, psychology applied to the field of persuasion and advertising has the most profound and deep knowledge of bullshit generation and reception.

Politicians, marketers... best bullshit experts ever ... :D
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
The interesting thing is: Despite each of us distinguishing what is BS uniquely, I suspect in medicine the results, if graphed, often scatter and then present as polarized groupings.

The scary thing is: Eventually, some of us reach a point where we identify both or all groupings as BS.

I suppose at that point the groupings need to be relabeled as droppings.
 

msf

Senior Member
Messages
3,650
How can a scientific article use the term bullshit? Now that really is bullshit.
 
Messages
3,263
How can a scientific article use the term bullshit? Now that really is bullshit.
Actually, the paper's dead serious and quite good. It argues that the term "bullshit" defines a type of misrepresentation that is different from lying and for which there is no other real label. The article explores a specific subtype that the authors call "pseudo-profound bullshit" which is where the writer's intention is to sound profound without really saying anything.

To study pseudo-profound bullshit, the authors took a whole bunch of tweets from Deepak Chopra and jumbled them up. Now, that's funny. :p

Just read @alex3619's post on another thread.
alex3619 said:
This is much older than BPS. Psychogenic medicine was failing when BPS gave it a new fancy name and theory, without actually providing any substance.
Now, does it start to look relevant?
 
Last edited:

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
By refining, we self-actualize.
:wide-eyed:

o_O

:rofl:

So profound!
Let me try something profound. (Oh, no, is profound a new dirty word? Is it like "who you gonna call?".) What if this stuff works because its like poetry. It almost makes sense, so you bring the rest of the sense in you, you make meaning out of almost-meaning? In other words, its like a puzzle, and people just complete the puzzle with what they think it means. Then they are invested in it. Cognitive dissonance does the rest.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Actually, the paper's dead serious and quite good. It argues that the term "bullshit" defines a type of misrepresentation that is different from lying and for which there is no other real label.
Impressive that they recognized and resisted the temptation to try to sound more profound by finding or creating a more 'scientifically acceptable' word in order to sound more intellectual. We all know what BS is and that's what they're talking about. Good for them for being determined to say so .