On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit

[Whateverist]

Here's the first of four studies they did for the paper:

We presented participants with ten statements that have syntactic structure but that consist of a series of randomly selected vague buzzwords.  Participants were asked to indicate the relative profundity of each statement on a scale from 1 (not at all profound) to 5 (very profound).  We argue that high ratings indicate receptivity toward bullshit.  Participants also completed a series of relevant cognitive and demographic questions.

The buzzwords were actually pulled from Deepak Chopra's Twitter feed. (!)  Examples of sentences were "Imagination is inside exponential space time events" and "We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself".

Or as the professor would have said, we live in the end days.

[Minimalist]

The buzzwords were actually pulled from Deepak Chopra's Twitter feed.

Speaking of bullshit artists.....................

[TheRealJoeFish]

The buzzwords were actually pulled from Deepak Chopra's Twitter feed.

Speaking of bullshit artists.....................

Knowing who Deepak Chopra was was negatively correlated with accepting bullshit.  As in, if you know Deepak Chopra, you know he's a bullshit artist, and are possibly more likely to be on guard for that kind of stuff.

[brewer]

The rationally challanged have achieved an undiscovered nirvana.

[Alex K]

Here's every skeptic physicists favourite BS:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgr...efile.html

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not know what I find more disturbing: the paper itself or the uncritical receptivity to it findings. The authors seem trapped within their own literalist worldview. Some of their examples of bullshit are either 1) pretentious ways of conveying more simple ideas or 2) propositions heavily-laden with connotations. Take for example the Chopra quote they consider representative of bullshit:

"Attention and inattention are the mechanics of manifestation."

The authors classify the above as bullshit. It is not. Even though I disagree with the quote, I can see how it captures an idea that fits within the Idealist worldview of Chopra. It's just another way of saying that the world is your mirror. In effect, we construct our personal reality from things we notice and care about. That is actually a well known psychological fact, one that Chopra, mistakenly in my opinion, raises to a metaphysical fact. That's strike one against the paper.

The paper does however focus on the responses people give to randomly generated propositions. Notice that common everyday words, by design, were not included. That's because everyday language is more highly denotative: dogs, houses, and flowers. Dictionary entries for these types of words tend to be short and have few related concepts. Any proposition composed of common everyday words will have a more restricted set of possible meanings than propositions constructed from abstract terms with multiple connotations. The authors consider that ambiguity a sign that the randomly generated phrases have no content, i.e. they aren't about anything. But that isn't necessarily the case. The ambiguity of the phrases actually allow them to point to a wider range of possible content. Interpretation of highly connotative phrases depend more on context than narrow denotative ones. For example, my last sentence would be much more difficult to parse without the preceding paragraph. In the introduction the author present the following sentence as one that has no content:

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena."

The problem with the above phrase is not that it has no content; but rather that it has too much possible content. As such it can more easily find a home in some known worldview. Moreover, the truths of human life are themselves have great flexibility. For example, the following two proverbs seem contradictory: "No man is an island" and "Every man is a nation unto himself." In reality, they need not be. Each depends on the context.

So my point is that the study forces people to assign meaning in the absence of the context needed to assign a specific meaning to the randomly generated phrases. Therefore, they interpret them according to known paradigms or at the very least recognize that they could possibly fit within a paradigm not yet known. Where the authors consider their subjects dupes a reader of the paper could see the research subjects as more thoughtful than the researchers.

If the phrases under consideration were not singular and out of context; but rather, strung together in large blocks people would easily see them for what they were.

[GUBU]

I do not know what I find more disturbing: the paper itself or the uncritical receptivity to it findings. The authors seem trapped within their own literalist worldview. Some of their examples of bullshit are either 1) pretentious ways of conveying more simple ideas or 2) propositions heavily-laden with connotations. Take for example the Chopra quote they consider representative of bullshit:

"Attention and inattention are the mechanics of manifestation."

The authors classify the above as bullshit. It is not. Even though I disagree with the quote, I can see how it captures an idea that fits within the Idealist worldview of Chopra. It's just another way of saying that the world is your mirror. In effect, we construct our personal reality from things we notice and care about. That is actually a well known psychological fact, one that Chopra, mistakenly in my opinion, raises to a metaphysical fact. That's strike one against the paper.

The paper does however focus on the responses people give to randomly generated propositions. Notice that common everyday words, by design, were not included. That's because everyday language is more highly denotative: dogs, houses, and flowers. Dictionary entries for these types of words tend to be short and have few related concepts. Any proposition composed of common everyday words will have a more restricted set of possible meanings than propositions constructed from abstract terms with multiple connotations. The authors consider that ambiguity a sign that the randomly generated phrases have no content, i.e. they aren't about anything. But that isn't necessarily the case. The ambiguity of the phrases actually allow them to point to a wider range of possible content. Interpretation of highly connotative phrases depend more on context than narrow denotative ones. For example, my last sentence would be much more difficult to parse without the preceding paragraph. In the introduction the author present the following sentence as one that has no content:

"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena."

The problem with the above phrase is not that it has no content; but rather that it has too much possible content. As such it can more easily find a home in some known worldview. Moreover, the truths of human life are themselves have great flexibility. For example, the following two proverbs seem contradictory: "No man is an island" and "Every man is a nation unto himself." In reality, they need not be. Each depends on the context.

So my point is that the study forces people to assign meaning in the absence of the context needed to assign a specific meaning to the randomly generated phrases. Therefore, they interpret them according to known paradigms or at the very least recognize that they could possibly fit within a paradigm not yet known. Where the authors consider their subjects dupes a reader of the paper could see the research subjects as more thoughtful than the researchers.

If the phrases under consideration were not singular and out of context; but rather, strung together in large blocks people would easily see them for what they were.

Chad what you should find so disturbing is that you so easily dismiss something which disagrees witb your worldview, despite the evidence presented. That is seriously fucked up, and shows why you are easily brainwashed.