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: | 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: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923ac/jdm15923acr.pdf |
Similar Items
-
On the reception and
detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
by: Gordon Pennycook, et al.
Published: (2015-11-01) -
Finding meaning in
the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound
bullshit
by: Alexander C. Walker, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01) -
Bullshit for you;
transcendence for me. A commentary on "On the reception and detection of
pseudo-profound bullshit"
by: Craig Dalton
Published: (2016-01-01) -
Are neoliberals more
susceptible to bullshit?
by: Joanna Sterling, et al.
Published: (2016-07-01) -
Everybody Bullshits Sometimes: Relationships of Bullshitting Frequency, Overconfidence and Myside Bias in the Topic of Migration
by: Vladimíra Čavojová, et al.
Published: (2021-05-01)