Abstract
AbstractI raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for profundity by subjects unaware of the source of the statements. The assessment of each statement’s profundity was not based on its impact on the subject but was already predetermined to be “bullshit” based on its random generation by a computer. The statements could nonetheless have been subjectively profound and could have provided glimpses of insight and wisdom to the subjects.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Economics and Econometrics,Applied Psychology,General Decision Sciences
Reference5 articles.
1. Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide
2. Cage, J. (1956). Music of changes. Performed 1956. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAjKD12RkEY
3. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit.;Pennycook;Judgment and Decision Making,,2015
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献