On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by sebstefan on Friday June 02, 2023 @08:55AM (#36164446)

I feel like this is a strong contender for the 2023 Ig Nobel prize in psychology

They have banger entries for psychology

> Miranda Giacomin and Nicholas Rule, for devising a method to identify narcissists by examining their eyebrows

>Fritz Strack, for discovering that holding a pen in one's mouth makes one smile, which makes one happier—and for then discovering that it does not.

> Evelyne Debey and colleagues, for asking a thousand liars how often they lie, and for deciding whether to believe those answers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by svnt on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:38AM (#36164895)

So many misses in this paper — mistaking adjacencies for similarities, not defining culturally-referenced terms adequately.

It is a perfect paper for accidentally exposing their own implicit biases and ontologies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by emmender on Friday June 02, 2023 @10:17AM (#36165410)

The value added by the paper is to direct the readers attention to BS - and make them think about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by mbork_pl on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:27AM (#36164758)

> Miranda Giacomin and Nicholas Rule, for devising a method to identify narcissists by examining their eyebrows

A one-element sample of a certain Doctor seems to indicate a strong correlation...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by boomboomsubban on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:45AM (#36164969)

I have no idea who you're joking about, so this post is "a doctor exists that both has (or does not have) eyebrows and seems to be a narcissist."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by mbork_pl on Friday June 02, 2023 @01:38PM (#36168278)

Well, the Twelfth Doctor, of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by alehlopeh on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:12AM (#36164596)

I feel like you just wanted to reference some studies you enjoy and call them bangers, because only the last one could be considered similar to the linked study, and even then, only barely and superficially.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by sebstefan on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:24AM (#36164734)

I'm even replying to this just to say banger again

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by nathan_compton on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:17AM (#36164645)

Are you kidding? This paper hews dangerously close to bullshit itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by svnt on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:34AM (#36164843)

Maybe you missed the Ig?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by nathan_compton on Friday June 02, 2023 @10:52AM (#36165912)

Duh.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit by raverbashing on Friday June 02, 2023 @09:18AM (#36164663)

Funnily enough they quote a person called "Harry Frankfurt" which really sounds like some name made for a cartoon or something

[ Parent | on HN ]