Expanding the bullshit research out of pseudo-transcendental domain

Čavojová, Vladimíra; Brezina, Igor; Jurkovič, Marek

doi:10.1007/s12144-020-00617-3

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This builds on the idea that pseudo-profound bullshit is only one kind of bullshit among many to be operationalized (Pennycook et al, 2015;Sterling et al, 2016). Importantly, receptivity to bullshit might be generalizable across domains, meaning that one might be receptive to bullshit no matter whether it is political, pseudo-profound, or scientific (Čavojová et al, 2022;Evans et al, 2020).…”

Section: Political Bullshit Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that pseudo-profound bullshit might be only one type of bullshit, " [a] point on what could be considered a spectrum of bullshit" (Pennycook et al, 2015, p. 550), researchers attempted to measure other instances of bullshit; for example, Evans and colleagues (2020) measured scientific bullshit (assembling random words from physics glossary), while Čavojová, Brezina, and Jurkovič (2022) attempted to measure general bullshit (i.e., no abstract buzzwords). Endorsement of both types of bullshit showed to be highly correlated with the receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit (rs = .60 and .83 respectively).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A cross-country validation of the concept

Gligorić

Feddes

Doosje

2022

J. Soc. Polit. Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophers conceptualized bullshit as persuasive communication that has no regard for truth, knowledge, or evidence. In psychology, research mostly investigated pseudo-profound bullshit, but no study has examined bullshit in the political context. In the present research, we operationalized political bullshit receptivity as endorsing vague political statements, slogans, and political bullshit programs. We investigated the relationship of these three measures with pseudo-profound bullshit, ideology (political ideology, support for neoliberalism), populism, and voting behavior. Three pre-registered studies conducted in early 2020 in the U.S., Serbia, and the Netherlands (total N = 534) yielded medium to high intercorrelations between political bullshit measures and pseudo-profound bullshit, and acceptable construct validity (hypothesized one-factor solution). A meta-analysis on these three studies showed that all political bullshit measures positively correlated with support for the free market, while only some positively correlated with social (political statements and programs) and economic conservatism (programs), and populism (programs). In the U.S., the Netherlands, and all countries combined, increased receptivity to political bullshit was associated with a higher probability to vote for right-wing candidates/parties (e.g., Trump in the U.S.). Overall, political bullshit receptivity showed to be a useful construct that opens avenues for research in broad and meaningless political communication.

show abstract

Section: Political Bullshit Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A cross-country validation of the concept

Gligorić

Feddes

Doosje

2022

J. Soc. Polit. Psych.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having argued that obscurantism, given its unclarity and subterranean movements, deserves to be kept distinct from bullshit, one could ask the following question: how can both concepts be related? The suggestion in the foregoing pages has not aligned with classifying obscurantism as a type of bullshit, but it would allow for the classification of the disposition to produce bullshit and obscurantism as an epistemic vice (Cassam, 2018) given that they somehow both obstruct the free flow of knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their study revealed that although bullshit lacks adequate meaning or truth, profundity is that characteristic feature of bullshit which "attempts to impress rather than inform; to be engaging rather than instructive" (Pennycook et al, 2015, p. 550). Pennycook et al found that people who were more receptive to bullshit were those who were low in the capacity for reflective thinking and cognitive ability, likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and likely to endorse alternative medicine (Pennycook et al, 2015;Čavojov a et al, 2020). Other studies also suggest that bullshit predicts diminished prosocial behaviour 6 (Erlandsson et al, 2018), rises with a heightened presumption of meaningfulness (Brown et al, 2019), and serves as a low-cost strategy for impressing other people (Turpin et al, 2019).…”

Section: Understanding Bullshitmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Obscurantism Differs from Bullshit: A Proposal

Bien

2021

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper holds the view that although bullshit and obscurantism are obviously related phenomena, they should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons. It shows that whereas phenomena of bullshit tend to concentrate on speech acts and a violation of the expectations of relevance therein, obscurantism betrays an indirect move to confound while promising deep content. After an overview of studies on bullshit and a look at the different characteristics and types of obscurantism, this paper investigates why readers retain interest in reading obscure texts. Interpretive charity, which is one of the reasons for this sustained interest, is found to be unsuccessful in making sense of obscurantism. Obscurantism is thus seen to be a vice more cryptic and systematic than bullshit.

show abstract

“…Thus, while much research has focused on the cognitive shortcomings of those receptive to bullshit (Čavojová, 2020;Pennycook et al, 2015;Walker et al, 2019), the current work focuses on the cognitive properties of bullshit producers. We find that those more skilled in producing satisfying and seemingly accurate bullshit score higher on measures of cognitive ability and are perceived by others as more intelligent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence

Turpin¹,

Kara-Yakoubian²,

Walker³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to navigate social systems efficiently is critical to our species. Humans appear endowed with a cognitive system that has at least partially formed to best meet the unique cognitive challenges that emerge in a highly social species. Bullshitting, a style of communication characterised by an intent to be convincing or impressive without concern for the truth, is ubiquitous within human societies. Across two studies (N = 1,017), we assess whether participants’ ability to produce satisfying and seemingly accurate bullshit (i.e., explanations of fake concepts) acts as an honest signal of their intelligence. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that bullshit ability is predictive of participants’ intelligence and individuals capable of producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be higher in intelligence. We interpret these results as adding further evidence for human intelligence being naturally geared towards the efficient navigation of social systems. The ability to produce satisfying bullshit may serve to assist individuals in negotiating their social world, both as an energetically efficient strategy for impressing others and as an honest signal of one’s intelligence.

show abstract

Expanding the bullshit research out of pseudo-transcendental domain

Cited by 18 publications

References 27 publications

Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A cross-country validation of the concept

Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A cross-country validation of the concept

How Obscurantism Differs from Bullshit: A Proposal

Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About