All descriptions and biographical information is factual without any discussion of some pseudo-profound meaning. Same goes for good art critics such as David Sylvester[1]. He was one of the very few art critics that tried go past the pseudo-intellectual bullshit and truly understand Art and the Artist behind it.

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit 1/15/16, 10:11 AM http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html Page 4 of 26 Here, the bullshittee is simply unaware that the relevant stimulus requires special consideration. This mechanism is linked to what has been labelled as “conﬂict

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. 4:25 AM - 27 Dec Bullshit är en fransk-finländsk-norsk-svensk dokumentärfilm från 2005 i regi av PeÅ Holmquist och Suzanne Khardalian. Filmen skildrar den indiska Chopras utsagor i form av 'pseudo-profound bullshit' har studerats ingående och använts ”On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit” (html). Artikeln har rubriken ”On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”.

Judgment and Decision Making, 2015, vol. 10, issue 6, 549-563. Abstract: Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-profound Bullshit (2015) Gordon Pennycook , James Allan Cheyne , Nathaniel Barr , Derek J. Koehler and Jonathan A. Fugelsang Published in Judgment and Decision Making 10(6):549-563. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. By gregladen on November 30, 2015.

It pretends to be profoundly knowledgeable to […] “I got interested in bullshit-sensitivity after reading the very alluringly named article ‘On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit‘ by Pennycook et al.

On Bullshit Bullshit (BS) is often interpreted as nonsensical facts. The use of empty words is a common characteristic of BS. The term is generally used as a placeholder for contexts like humbug, knickknack, frippery or mumbo jumbo. BS always has something arbitrary and is characterized by vagueness. It pretends to be profoundly knowledgeable to […]

December 2015; Judgment and Decision Making 10(6):549-563; On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound b ullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp.

On The Reception And Detection Of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit On The Reception And Detection Of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit . H/T Noah Smith. Gordon Pennycook

Unlike response bias, this mechanism involves distinguishing bull- On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit 1/15/16, 10:11 AM, On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.

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. 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. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS) 2017-05-08 · On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.” – Harry Frankfurt 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.
Potenslagar

"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. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS) 2017-05-08 · On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth.

This result suggests that the particularly robust association between pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity and supernatural beliefs may be because both response bias and conflict detection (sensitivity) support both factors. Further research is needed to test this claim. The startling possibility with respect to pseudo-profound bullshit is that people will first accept the bullshit as true (or meaningful) and, depending on downstream cognitive mechanisms such as conflict detection (discussed below), either retain a default sense of meaningfulness or invoke deliberative reasoning to assess the truth (or meaningfulness) of the proposition. 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.
Malmö universitetsbibliotek logga in

29 Apr 2016 A commentary on "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit". Judgm Decis Mak. 2016;11: 121–122. 16. Pennycook G, Cheyne

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. may not lead to the detection and reception of pseudo-profound bullshit, it is useful to consider a. Dual Processing Model.

Skriva faktura mall

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

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.