SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I receive the Bright's Bulletin from The Brights Net (http://www.the-brights.net/) (A "bright" (n.) is a person whose worldview is naturalistic (no supernatural and mystical elements)) and the December issue highlights an article from the Journal of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (SJDM) and the European Association for Decision Making (EADM): On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
From the Bulletin:
Receptivity for "Bullshit" Scrutinized
The authors of a recent article in the Journal of Judgment and Decisionmaking do not hold back. Having considered "nonsense" and "rubbish" inadequate to the phenomenon of interest, they deem "bullshit" a consequential aspect of the human condition and set about to put at least one type of it under empirical investigation.
Titling their report, "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit," they define the attribute as "seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous."
After pursuing 4 different studies regarding bullshit detection, the authors conclude, among other things:
"[W]ith the rise of communication technology, people are likely encountering more bullshit in their everyday lives than ever before."... [S]ome people are more receptive to this type of bullshit" and "[D]etecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims."
The study is serious, but reading it is likely to bring chuckles to many Brights who would like to think that Deepak Chopra would not be pleased by the scrutiny.
The article:
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
or
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html*
I'm not sure which is more newsworthy: the article contents or the fact that "bullshit" is a mainstream English word now!
*Update: 12/14 14:18 GMT by mrcoolbp : I updated the second link as per the submitter
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:47PM
The tone of the study, the bulletin article, and the summary tend to reinforce the negative stereotypes of both believers and rationalists.
Both of those groups can benefit from encouraging critical thinking, rational argument, discernment, understanding, and good communications.
Both groups have members that have sound intellectual footing, and other members that have not thought through the foundations of their beliefs.
A study that encourages people to contemplate their beliefs that are unsound is a good thing, but that message is more likely to be received if it is communicated with respect and humility. Or perhaps the writers are just preaching to the choir, or lecturing to members as the case may be.
"From the start, the “brights” label reinforced a longstanding stereotype. Atheists already have a terrible rap for being cold-hearted rationalists who attend Mensa gatherings and dismiss religious believers as simple-minded fools. Remember the public outcry that resulted when Jesse Ventura told Playboy magazine that he considered organized religion to be “a sham and a crutch for weak minded people who need strength in numbers"? I actually don’t think that most atheists look down on or sneer at their religious compatriots, but that’s beside the point. Given this backdrop of strongly held negative preconceptions about atheists in our heavily religious society, how is renaming atheists “brights” supposed to burnish their image?"
Quote from Chris Mooney at http://www.csicop.org/ [csicop.org]
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/not_too_bright/ [csicop.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:12PM
Correction on the comment "The tone of the study, the bulletin article, and the summary..."
The original study linked to does not use the word "Bullshit" at all and it is called "Does telling white lies signal pro-social preferences?"
(Score: 1) by TrentDavey on Saturday December 12 2015, @07:35PM
Yes, the html version link is actually to the previous article in the journal. oops.
The correct link is:
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html [sjdm.org]
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Monday December 14 2015, @02:22PM
And the story has been updated as well.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:56PM
Name changing is a bad idea and I want nothing to do with it as an "out" atheist. As allegedly thinking people they should know that the key to overcoming bigotry is benign exposure. By rebranding they have to start over building those benign exposures us setting us all back. Benign is the operative word. I would have someone listen to Penn Jillette talk about atheism in an attempt to convert them, never Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. Those to are for reinforcing the ideals of converts.
This is by no means meant to be a comparison of scale of bigotry. But all bigotry is overcome using the same tool.