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) by khallow on Sunday December 13 2015, @12:35AM
Fourth Law of Revision: It is usually impractical to worry beforehand about inferences -- if you have none, someone will make one for you.
(Score: 1) by unzombied on Sunday December 13 2015, @01:10AM
"[T]he power of this phrase is that the reader can easily insert their own meaning into it." So, uhhh, the phrase is so nonsensical that it's a blank page on which the reader writes? Frankly, this is meaningless. In the ordinary definition of "meaning." In bullshitter terms, it is of immense vitality--or not, depending on the reader.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 13 2015, @04:22AM
Here, the placebo has at least two beneficial effects. First, it forces them to think about the problem a bit differently. Second, it commits them to a choice, which is usually better than waffling, if they resort to these schemes in the first place. Obviously, their choice could be poorer than optimal, but if they were having such a hard time in the first place to decide, then it's probably not that big a deal.
(Score: 2) by unzombied on Sunday December 13 2015, @07:02AM