Impressed by "wise-sounding" quotes? Shows low intelligence
Posted: 06 Dec 2015
At last ... Scientists find link between people impressed by wise-sounding, 'profound' quotes and low intelligence.
Oh, boy, wait until the BKs reads this one.
PhD candidate Gordon Pennycook and a team of researchers from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, published a study entitled "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullsh**"
Oh, boy, wait until the BKs reads this one.
A new study has shown that people who believe in psuedo-profound, intellectual-sounding quotes are less intelligent.
It found that those who are receptive to pseudo-profound, intellectual-sounding 'bullsh**' are less intelligent, less reflective, and more likely to be believe in conspiracy theories, the paranormal and alternative medicine.
PhD candidate Gordon Pennycook and a team of researchers from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, published a study entitled "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullsh**"
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 549–563
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullsh**
Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang
Abstract
Although bullsh** 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 bullsh**, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullsh** statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”).
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullsh** statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements.
These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullsh** and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullsh** receptivity.