Link found between low intelligence and falling for pseudo-profound statements

[ABX]

Explains liberals. Well all know the ones sharing the 'water feels emotions' type of crap.

A new study has found that people who buy into "pseudo-profound bullsh*t" – the researchers' words, not ours – are more likely to score on the low side for verbal and fluid intelligence, and are also more likely to believe in conspiracies and endorse alternative medicine.

What exactly is pseudo-profound bullsh*t, you might ask? In the context of this study, it's defined as statements that sound super deep but actually make very little sense – you know, the kind that one friend is always sharing on Facebook. For example: "Wellbeing requires exploration. To traverse the mission is to become one with it," and "Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract."

"Although this statement may seem to convey some sort of potentially profound meaning, it is merely a collection of buzzwords put together randomly in a sentence that retains syntactic structure," the researchers write in the journal Judgement and Decision Making.

It probably comes as no surprise that this kind of bullsh*t is everywhere these days, particularly when it comes to the Internet. But very little research has gone into why some people are so responsive to these types of statements, and so PhD student Gordon Pennycook and a team of researchers from the University of Waterloo in Canada have published what they believe is the first study to "empirically investigate" bullsh*t. ....

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-link-between-low-intelligence-and-believing-philosophical-quotes

[Oceander]

Explains liberals to a tee.

[ABX]

Explains liberals to a tee.

And describes a good way to troll them. Just use the random BS generator and throw the quotes at them (Deepak fell for it and even wrote an article about some of the BS not realizing it was BS).

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

[Oceander]

And describes a good way to troll them. Just use the random BS generator and throw the quotes at them (Deepak fell for it and even wrote an article about some of the BS not realizing it was BS).

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Nice point!

I don't remember all the details, but I do remember a few years ago there was an academic who wrote a thoroughly BS paper that made it into a peer-reviewed journal for one of the so-called "soft" sciences (i.e., fields that aren't really science).

[ABX]

Nice point!

I don't remember all the details, but I do remember a few years ago there was an academic who wrote a thoroughly BS paper that made it into a peer-reviewed journal for one of the so-called "soft" sciences (i.e., fields that aren't really science).

The SciGen project at MIT. https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/  Several major academic journals fell for papers generated by this.

[Oceander]

The SciGen project at MIT. https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/  Several major academic journals fell for papers generated by this.

That's it.

[truth_seeker]

When cows eat grass, does the grass feel the pain? Yes the grass feels the pain.

Therefore God is not good, for making the cow that makes the grass cry.

*MS thesis, in Vegan theology.

[Paladin]

"In the context of this study, it's defined as statements that sound super deep but actually make very little sense – you know, the kind that one friend is always sharing on Facebook."

Actually many pseudo-profound statements can be found in the pronouncements of academia these days.