It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)

It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)

I raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler and Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for profundity by subjects unaware of the source of the statements. The assessment of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Society for Judgment and Decision Making 2016-01-01
Series:Judgment and Decision Making
Subjects:
bullshit
transcendence
paradoxNAKeywords
Online Access:http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdf
Description
Summary:I raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler and Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for profundity by subjects unaware of the source of the statements. The assessment of each statement’s profundity was not based on its impact on the subject but was already predetermined to be “bullshit” based on its random generation by a computer. The statements could nonetheless have been subjectively profound and could have provided glimpses of insight and wisdom to the subjects.
ISSN:1930-2975

Similar Items