3 Dec 2015 A new study is getting a lot of attention, partly because of its provocative title: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.

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'

Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. The goal is to investigate whether there are consistent and meaningful individual differences in the ability to spontaneously discern or detect pseudo-profound bullshit. Unlike response bias, this mechanism involves distinguishing bullshit from non-bullshit. This qualifies as bullshit under Frankfurt's broad definition because the content is being communicated absent a concern for the truth. Nonetheless, the character of conversational bullshit is likely quite different from pseudo-profound bullshit, and by extension the reception and detection of it may be determined by different psychological factors. The difference between profundity ratings between legitimately meaningful quotations and pseudo-profound bullshit will serve as our measures of bullshit sensitivity.

2 Dec 2015 Those who are more receptive to pseudo-profound new-age a paper entitled ' On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bulls***', which "Bulls***, in contrast to mere nonsense, is something that im randomly recombining the tweets of Deepak Chopra, and used in a study on “ the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” by Gordon Pennycook, 3 Dec 2015 A new study is getting a lot of attention, partly because of its provocative title: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. 10 Dec 2015 A step in this direction was taken by Pennycook et al. who published “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” on the last 3 Dec 2015 That's according to a University of Waterloo study gloriously titled "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit." Published in the 11 Dec 2015 A new study, “On The Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit,” finds that people who believe/post/share inspirational quotes 2 Dec 2015 paper: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or 2 Mar 2016 Decision Making he published a quantitative overview “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” (the title of his article). 4 Dec 2015 NEWS: In late 2015, multiple web sites posted articles about an article titled “On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit,” 7 Dec 2015 Question is: Do you get inspired by them?

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit By gregladen on November 30, 2015. A new paper out in the journal Judgement and Decision Making by Gordon Pennycook, James Cheyne,

In On Bullshit, the philosopher Frankfurt (2005) defines bullshit as something that is designed to impress but that was constructed absent direct concern for the truth. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous.

NEWS: In late 2015, multiple web sites posted articles about an article titled “On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit,” [ PDF] published in the journal Judgment and Decision

Judgment and Decision making 10, 20 Jan 2016 On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. ABSTRACT.

Gordon Pennycook On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit Gordon Pennycook* James Allan Cheyne# Nathaniel Barr$ Derek J. Koehler$ Jonathan A. Fugelsang$ Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (c ritical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been English: Gordon Pennycook et al 2015 On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-profound Bullshit Judgment and Decision Making 10(6) 549-563 Hamburg, Stadtstaaten Hamburg, Germany: Society for Judgment and Decision Making http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 549–563 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 ingen- uous) has not, to our 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. 2015-12-04 · “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” appeared to be a genuine paper, legitimately published in the journal Judgment and Decision Making in November 2015. This 2015 paper ought to provoke provoke an interesting discussion: On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.
Svensk handel fondförsäkring

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Nyckelord: Rubriker, Pseudo Profound Bullshit, Bostäder, Femfaktorteorin reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Jonathan Fugelsang som skrivit artikeln “On the reception and detection of pseudoprofound bullshit”, och Christopher Chabris som gjorde de Meganaesthetic · a study entitled “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit,” · New AgeCoola Ord. Visdomsord. Motiverande CitatOrd. Tankar.

those who find pseudo-profound bullshit statements such as “the unexplainable touches on the inherent experiences of 18 Jan 2021 Just this week, I learned the phrase 'pseudo-profound bullshit' and more importantly, that it was But you are clever enough to detect that. 5 Feb 2021 "Importantly, people with higher bullshit receptivity are more willing to share pseudo-profound bullshit with others (Čavojováetal 2018) & more Cecilia Djurberg har läst "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit" av Gordon Pennycook et al. Krönika: Detta är en On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html … #vinterip1.
Resultat före finansiella kostnader

2015-12-03 · "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.

2015-11-30 · Bullshit and academia continue their delighted dance. Behold a new study: “On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit,” Gordon Pennycook [pictured here], James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6 Posts about On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit written by Andrew Multicultural Meanderings Working site on citizenship and multiculturalism issues. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit I want to thank MindBlog reader Mike Walterman, who sent me an email pointing me to this article (which won an Ig Nobel Prize) and commented on his experience with "Flow Genome Project" which I reviewed in a Nov. 17, 2017 post titled "Modern flimflam men? His study, “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit,” was published in the journal Judgment and Decision Making in November. Pennycook, along with a team of researchers from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, tested close to 800 participants on whether they could determine if a statement was bullshit.

bullseye bullshit/SM bullshitted bullshitter/S bullshitting bullwhackers bully/MTGRSD detainment/SM detect/UBSDVG detectability/U detectably/U detection/MS profiterole/SM profitless profligacy/S profligate/YS proforma/S profound/TPY psalter psaltery/MS psephologist/M pseudo/S pseudonym/SM pseudonymous

ambiguity, may be exacerbated by the nature of recent me-. dia. As a prime e Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Nathaniel Barr & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2015. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 549-563, November. Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 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.

Nonetheless, the character of conversational bullshit is likely quite different from pseudo-profound bullshit, and by extension the reception and detection of it may be determined by different psychological factors. The difference between profundity ratings between legitimately meaningful quotations and pseudo-profound bullshit will serve as our measures of bullshit sensitivity.