Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Study Suggests Conservatives Are More Susceptible To Bullsh*t; Scientifically speaking
Topic Started: May 13 2016, 10:05 PM (1,268 Views)
Eddo26
Member Avatar

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/are-conservatives-more-susceptible-bullsht

A new paper claims that people who think meaningless statements are profound are more sympathetic to Republican candidates in the current U.S. election. Delightful as this conclusion may be to anyone worried by the rise of Donald Trump, the authors caution against drawing too wide conclusions. On the other hand, the study, published in PLOS ONE, opens new lines of research in the emerging field of bullsh*t studies.

“In this contribution, bullsh*t is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science,” write Dr. Stefan Pfattheicher and Dr. Simon Schindler. Working from this definition, the authors adopt the “Bullsh*t Receptivity scale (BSR)” to measure how likely people were to see bullsh*t statements as profound.
Edited by Eddo26, May 13 2016, 10:06 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

iflscience.com :lol:

http://www.ifhscience.net/
Edited by estonianman, May 13 2016, 10:16 PM.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Member013

estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:14 PM
iflscience.com :lol:


estonianman :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Sunshine Superman
May 13 2016, 10:15 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:14 PM
iflscience.com :lol:


estonianman :lol:
I don't promote garbage, but it appears you and OP do.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:16 PM
Sunshine Superman
May 13 2016, 10:15 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:14 PM
iflscience.com :lol:


estonianman :lol:
I don't promote garbage, but it appears you and OP do.
It's a science website that follows the scientific method. It's not garbage.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Eddo36
May 13 2016, 10:22 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:16 PM
Sunshine Superman
May 13 2016, 10:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't promote garbage, but it appears you and OP do.
It's a science website that follows the scientific method. It's not garbage.
Perhaps to leftists - who also have an interesting version of math they use to justify their narrative.

"Bullsh*t Receptivity scale (BSR)”

Real science lol
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:29 PM
Eddo36
May 13 2016, 10:22 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:16 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
It's a science website that follows the scientific method. It's not garbage.
Perhaps to leftists - who also have an interesting version of math they use to justify their narrative.

"Bullsh*t Receptivity scale (BSR)”

Real science lol
They did state what "BS" means in the technical term. I even quoted it in the original post.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

I have discovered that the "true believers" of any political ideology are equally susceptible to bulls**t...Worse still, they think they have wisdom greater than the other side.,......... :rollseyes:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
70-101
Member Avatar

"Study Suggests Conservatives Are More Susceptible To Bullsh*t; Scientifically speaking"

Here is a perfect example why the study is correct.

Posted Image


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Robert Stout
May 13 2016, 11:56 PM
I have discovered that the "true believers" of any political ideology are equally susceptible to bulls**t...Worse still, they think they have wisdom greater than the other side.,......... :rollseyes:
Posted Image
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

PLOS ONE (originally PLoS ONE) is a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006. The journal covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts. All submissions go through a pre-publication review by a member of the board of academic editors, who can elect to seek an opinion from an external reviewer. According to the journal, papers are not to be excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. Although the number of submissions decreased from 2013 to 2014, PLOS ONE remains the world’s largest journal by number of papers published (about 30,000 a year, or 85 papers per day) and has a 2014 journal impact factor of 3.234.

wiki
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coverpoint

“Participants were presented with 20 statements, half of which the authors considered bullsh*t, and half “mundane,” and were asked to rate how profound they were.”

This is where the “scientific” study falls to pieces. It relies on the authors of the statements themselves to determine if their message is “bullsh*t” or “mundane”. If any of the authors were themselves “conservative”, then their evaluation of their own message would be flawed.

The only way to “scientifically” determine if someone is susceptible to bullsh*t is to have messages that are scientifically confirmed to be either mundane or bullsh*t. This is simply not possible with words.

The real bullsh*t, is claiming this is a scientific study…
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

coverpoint
May 14 2016, 11:09 AM
“Participants were presented with 20 statements, half of which the authors considered bullsh*t, and half “mundane,” and were asked to rate how profound they were.”

This is where the “scientific” study falls to pieces. It relies on the authors of the statements themselves to determine if their message is “bullsh*t” or “mundane”. If any of the authors were themselves “conservative”, then their evaluation of their own message would be flawed.

The only way to “scientifically” determine if someone is susceptible to bullsh*t is to have messages that are scientifically confirmed to be either mundane or bullsh*t. This is simply not possible with words.

The real bullsh*t, is claiming this is a scientific study…
As you can clearly see from the article-
“In this contribution, bullsh*t is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science,”
Edited by Eddo26, May 14 2016, 01:19 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Member013

estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:16 PM
Sunshine Superman
May 13 2016, 10:15 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:14 PM
iflscience.com :lol:


estonianman :lol:
I don't promote garbage, but it appears you and OP do.


:rotflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Sunshine Superman
May 14 2016, 01:14 PM
estonianman
May 13 2016, 10:16 PM
Sunshine Superman
May 13 2016, 10:15 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I don't promote garbage, but it appears you and OP do.


:rotflmao:
You regularly post from s**t sources, including political propaganda, identity politics and race baiting. Your life on these forums is about as content worthy as tabloid garbage.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
coverpoint

Eddo36
May 14 2016, 01:12 PM
coverpoint
May 14 2016, 11:09 AM
“Participants were presented with 20 statements, half of which the authors considered bullsh*t, and half “mundane,” and were asked to rate how profound they were.”

This is where the “scientific” study falls to pieces. It relies on the authors of the statements themselves to determine if their message is “bullsh*t” or “mundane”. If any of the authors were themselves “conservative”, then their evaluation of their own message would be flawed.

The only way to “scientifically” determine if someone is susceptible to bullsh*t is to have messages that are scientifically confirmed to be either mundane or bullsh*t. This is simply not possible with words.

The real bullsh*t, is claiming this is a scientific study…
From the article-
“In this contribution, bullsh*t is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science,”
So who is it that decides that a statement actually "lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science"?

More importantly, they asked the participants to decide if the statements were "profound" or "mundane" (not if they were true or false). Who is it what is it that decides what the words "profound" or "mundane" means?

For instance, they asked a participant if the following was profound or mundane:
“A wet person does not fear the rain.”

Do you think this statement is profound or mundane? I might say either, or neither. And my answer certainly has absolutely nothing to do with my political views.

- That is just bullsh*t.


Edited by coverpoint, May 14 2016, 01:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

coverpoint
May 14 2016, 01:39 PM
Eddo36
May 14 2016, 01:12 PM
coverpoint
May 14 2016, 11:09 AM
“Participants were presented with 20 statements, half of which the authors considered bullsh*t, and half “mundane,” and were asked to rate how profound they were.”

This is where the “scientific” study falls to pieces. It relies on the authors of the statements themselves to determine if their message is “bullsh*t” or “mundane”. If any of the authors were themselves “conservative”, then their evaluation of their own message would be flawed.

The only way to “scientifically” determine if someone is susceptible to bullsh*t is to have messages that are scientifically confirmed to be either mundane or bullsh*t. This is simply not possible with words.

The real bullsh*t, is claiming this is a scientific study…
From the article-
“In this contribution, bullsh*t is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science,”
So who is it that decides that a statement actually "lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science"?

More importantly, they asked the participants to decide if the statements were "profound" or "mundane" (not if they were true or false). Who is it what is it that decides what the words "profound" or "mundane" means?

For instance, they asked a participant if the following was profound or mundane:
“A wet person does not fear the rain.”

Do you think this statement is profound or mundane? I might say either, or neither. And my answer certainly has absolutely nothing to do with my political views.

- That is just bullsh*t.


Do you really need me to hold your hand on everything?

Pseudo-profound bulls**t

The Bulls**t Receptivity scale (BSR) by Pennycook and colleagues [1] was used to assess pseudo-profound bulls**t receptivity. The BSR includes 10 sentences that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be profound and meaningful on first reading but are actually vacuous. Participants were asked how profound (in terms of deep meaning and of great and broadly inclusive significance) they consider each sentence to be (cf. [1]). A sample item reads: “Imagination is inside exponential space time events.” Open access to all items is provided by Pennycook and colleagues (see [1]). Participants rated the profoundness of each statement on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = not at all profound, through 2 = somewhat profound, 3 = fairly profound, 4 = definitely profound, to 5 = very profound. The BSR had good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87), a mean of 2.66, and an adequate standard deviation of 0.85.

Simple mundane statements

These statements were assessed using the items provided by Pennycook and colleagues (see [1]). Participants were again asked how profound they considered each sentence. A sample item reads: “A wet person does not fear the rain.” Participants rated profoundness on the same Likert-scale as was used for the BSR. The mundane statements scale had good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87), a mean of 3.16, and an adequate standard deviation of 0.83. The Pearson correlation of the BSR and mundane statements was .52 (p < .001), suggesting an underlying factor reflecting seeing profoundness in something.
Edited by Eddo26, May 14 2016, 02:09 PM.
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

:lol:
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dem4life

Posted Image Posted Image

Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Trump's above facial expressions are in response to Hillary's claims she didn't have her hard drive washed or that her E-mails were hacked........... :cool:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply