Re:Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior
by foldr on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @09:02AM
(#17765682)
I said that I'm ok with calling it "not bullshit", so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was questioning whether or not it could properly be called profound.
Re:Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior
by JdeBP on Wednesday August 15, 2018 @12:19PM
(#17767222)
On the contrary, you've spent almost every post in this sub-thread questioning whether it is true.
To question whether it should properly be called profound would be, conversely, to question the paper's methodology. There is, as I said, a definition of bullshit. There is no equivalent definition of profundity. Nor were test subjects asked to evaluate the sentences with an explicit profundity criterion. The so-called profoundness-receptivity metric was actually a measurement of bullshit-receptivity of non-bullshit statements.
Re:Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior
by foldr on Thursday August 16, 2018 @04:26AM
(#17772911)
>On the contrary, you've spent almost every post in this sub-thread questioning whether it is true
Yes, because it's difficult for a statement to be both profound and obviously false.
I just said that it's obviously false, so I don't understand why it is labeled "profound" in the paper. That's it.
Consider that you understood the statement without complaint of ambiguity, enough to question the truth of the assertion and discuss that with other people without your having to impart your own meaning that you construct. And consider the gyrations and gymnastics that people are applying in this very discussion to impart their own meanings to the other statements that are without consistent unambiguous meaning.