A New Decade of ME Research: The 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry presents the first in a series of articles on the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Kati, Dec 1, 2015.

  1. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    Messages:
    5,451
    Likes:
    19,501
    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: Dec 2, 2015
    PatJ, IreneF, Roy S and 11 others like this.
  2. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,460
    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."
     
  3. PeterPositive

    PeterPositive Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes:
    1,027
    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
     
    PatJ likes this.
  4. heapsreal

    heapsreal iherb 10% discount code OPA989,

    Messages:
    8,833
    Likes:
    8,099
    australia (brisbane)
    Cracker of a title, it drew me into the bullshit.
    Hehe
     
    leela, Woolie, helen1 and 1 other person like this.
  5. duncan

    duncan Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes:
    4,450
    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.
     
    worldbackwards, leela and Dufresne like this.
  6. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,186
    Likes:
    4,438
    How can a scientific article use the term bullshit? Now that really is bullshit.
     
  7. PeterPositive

    PeterPositive Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes:
    1,027
    :lol:
     
  8. Woolie

    Woolie Gone now, hope to see you all again soon somewhere

    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes:
    14,531
    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.
    Now, does it start to look relevant?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2015
    PatJ, SOC, Valentijn and 3 others like this.
  9. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
    Likes:
    34,775
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Its an anagram. Profound Bull Shit. PBS. BPS.:D

    Apologies to the Public Broadcasting Service and other organizations with these letters - t his is not about them.
     
    leela, SOC, Valentijn and 2 others like this.
  10. PeterPositive

    PeterPositive Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes:
    1,027
    Woolie and Sidereal like this.
  11. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,280
    Likes:
    45,787
  12. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,186
    Likes:
    4,438
    I´m sure Wessely and co. have their own psychosomatic bullshit generator.
     
  13. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,280
    Likes:
    45,787
    You know, that would explain an awful lot of the huge volumes of crap they produce :jaw-drop:
     
    Woolie, jimells and SOC like this.
  14. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
    Likes:
    34,775
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    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.
     
  15. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,460
    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 .
     
    Woolie and Keela Too like this.
  16. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,186
    Likes:
    4,438
    I was going to suggest that, Alex3619, but I was going to suggest that it is like bad poetry.
     
    PeterPositive and alex3619 like this.
  17. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,186
    Likes:
    4,438
    How about ´nonsense´ rather than ´bullshit.´
     
    PeterPositive likes this.
  18. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,280
    Likes:
    45,787
    Nonsense is nonsensical. Bullshit attempts to sound plausible.
     
  19. msf

    msf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,186
    Likes:
    4,438
  20. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,460

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page