WebOn the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit Gordon Pennycook* James Allan Cheyne# Nathaniel Barr$ Derek J. Koehler$ Jonathan A. Fugelsang$ Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (c ritical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been WebIn other words, more analytic individuals should be more likely to detect the need for additional scrutiny when exposed to pseudo-profound bullshit. More intuitive individuals, in contrast, should respond based on a sort of first impression, which will be inflated due to the vagueness of the pseudo-profound bullshit.
Bob on Twitter: "RT @smdiehl: Funniest and scariest paper I
Web1 de jan. de 2016 · Since the publication of Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, and Fugelsang’s (2015) paper on the reception of pseudo-profound bullshit, the concept of bullshit (BS) receptivity has slowly gained ... Web6 de abr. de 2024 · On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G., (2024). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. how far is bristow va from me
Page:On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-profound …
Web26 de set. de 2024 · Abstract. Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our … WebAlthough 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. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. Web30 votes and 4 comments so far on Reddit hifu curing cancer