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 (1,269 Views)
coverpoint

Eddo36
May 14 2016, 02:06 PM
coverpoint
May 14 2016, 01:39 PM
Eddo36
May 14 2016, 01:12 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep“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.”“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.
I have read the abstract and it does not answer my questions nor does it address the issue that these researchers have employed a “scale” (in this case developed by “Pennycook and colleagues”) to evaluate statements that they have deemed truly “profound” or “mundane” without any scientific basis. This sort of puesdo-science happens quite often in research, especially social study research.

The “scale” may be scientific (we don’t have access to any of Pennycook’s data), but the designation of the statements given to participants (truly profound or mundane) is not scientifically proved. If so, where is that proof?

If the researchers had asked the participants if they thought a statement were true or false, and the statement was scientifically proved to be true for false, then they could draw some deductions.

However, they chose instead to ask the participants a semantically defined question rather than a scientifically defined question.

The result is bullsh*t…
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeffersonCarter
Member Avatar

Doesn't the nomination of Donny Tramp as their guy sort of prove they are easily hoodwinked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

jeffersonCarter
May 14 2016, 03:13 PM
Doesn't the nomination of Donny Tramp as their guy sort of prove they are easily hoodwinked.
Statism will do that to you.

Posted Image
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Conservative Talk Radio.

That's game, set and match! The study is confirmed.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Hope and change

^real bulls***^
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Right-Wing
Member Avatar

Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
speedman

Get a life, trollboy. :rotflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply