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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdf |
| id |
doaj-ed632512e36a4ba086458deda60da461 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| spelling |
doaj-ed632512e36a4ba086458deda60da4612021-05-02T12:20:45ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752016-01-01111123125It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)Gordon PennycookJames Allan CheyneNathaniel BarrDerek J. KoehlerJonathan A. FugelsangI 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.http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdfbullshit transcendence paradoxNAKeywords |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
Gordon Pennycook James Allan Cheyne Nathaniel Barr Derek J. Koehler Jonathan A. Fugelsang |
| spellingShingle |
Gordon Pennycook James Allan Cheyne Nathaniel Barr Derek J. Koehler Jonathan A. Fugelsang It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016) Judgment and Decision Making bullshit transcendence paradoxNAKeywords |
| author_facet |
Gordon Pennycook James Allan Cheyne Nathaniel Barr Derek J. Koehler Jonathan A. Fugelsang |
| author_sort |
Gordon Pennycook |
| title |
It’s still bullshit:
Reply to Dalton (2016) |
| title_short |
It’s still bullshit:
Reply to Dalton (2016) |
| title_full |
It’s still bullshit:
Reply to Dalton (2016) |
| title_fullStr |
It’s still bullshit:
Reply to Dalton (2016) |
| title_full_unstemmed |
It’s still bullshit:
Reply to Dalton (2016) |
| title_sort |
it’s still bullshit:
reply to dalton (2016) |
| publisher |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making |
| series |
Judgment and Decision Making |
| issn |
1930-2975 |
| publishDate |
2016-01-01 |
| description |
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. |
| topic |
bullshit transcendence paradoxNAKeywords |
| url |
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT gordonpennycook itsstillbullshitreplytodalton2016 AT jamesallancheyne itsstillbullshitreplytodalton2016 AT nathanielbarr itsstillbullshitreplytodalton2016 AT derekjkoehler itsstillbullshitreplytodalton2016 AT jonathanafugelsang itsstillbullshitreplytodalton2016 |
| _version_ |
1721491570032640000 |