http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Abstract

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial….

Recently, some psychological research has focused on individual differences in the extent to which people perceive bullshit as meaningful. These studies have shown that people who rate bullshit sentences as highly meaningful have more religious and supernatural beliefs, are less reflective, intelligent, and numerate, more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation , endorse free market policies more , and have more favorable views of Republican presidential candidates in US politics . The aim of this study is to develop the academic field of bullshit further.

esselte said:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Abstract

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial….

Recently, some psychological research has focused on individual differences in the extent to which people perceive bullshit as meaningful. These studies have shown that people who rate bullshit sentences as highly meaningful have more religious and supernatural beliefs, are less reflective, intelligent, and numerate, more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation , endorse free market policies more , and have more favorable views of Republican presidential candidates in US politics . The aim of this study is to develop the academic field of bullshit further.

Checks date. Not April 1.

This seems to imply that those people with religious beliefs are less likely to donate to charity and volunteer for charity.

Is that correct?

esselte said:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Abstract

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”).

Checks date. Not April 1.

This seems to imply that those people with religious beliefs are less likely to donate to charity and volunteer for charity.

Is that correct?

Now reading further. An absolutely superb paper by the way. But I think I see a minor flaw in their methodology.

> Prosocial behavior (Section 11 & 9).

> The main dependent variable was measured in two ways. Donation experience was measured in Section 11 with the item “Have you donated money to any charity organization during the past year”. Participants could answer NO = 0 or YES = 1 (71% responded YES).

> Volunteering decision was measured in Section 9. Participants were told that there were only a few questions left and that they could choose either to “Go to the final questions” = 0 or “Continue for charity” = 1. They were told that continuing for charity meant that they then would respond to additional survey questions and that 5 SEK (≈ $0.6) would be donated to a charity organization of their choosing. Participants who chose to continue for charity (58.4%) responded to additional questions and could then pick which charity organization they wished to donate to from a list of well-known Swedish organizations. For each participant continuing for charity, we later donated 5 SEK to the charity of their choice.

Now if they had asked “Have you volunteered your time to any charitable organisation in the past year?” then that could have changed the results considerably. Further, “continue for charity” may select for those people who both like the survey method and feel that they have not had sufficient opportunity to donate to charity in the past year. Those with better bullshit-sensitivity may like the survey method more, and non-religious people may have had less opportunity to donate to the charity of their choice.

Overall, I love it. I like the dry sense of humour in a serious scientific work, eg. “WEIRD people (i.e. from western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies)”. There needs to be more research into not only how people perceive bullshit but how it affects their behaviour.

esselte said:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201474

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Abstract

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants’ bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial….

Recently, some psychological research has focused on individual differences in the extent to which people perceive bullshit as meaningful. These studies have shown that people who rate bullshit sentences as highly meaningful have more religious and supernatural beliefs, are less reflective, intelligent, and numerate, more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation , endorse free market policies more , and have more favorable views of Republican presidential candidates in US politics . The aim of this study is to develop the academic field of bullshit further.

That’s bullshit.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’ll read it now.

A bullshit meter would be handy. I want one.

This should come with every article

While this should be displayed on 7:30 Report, ABC NEWS etc

Tau.Neutrino said:

While this should be displayed on 7:30 Report, ABC NEWS etc

In total agreement. Specifically those two programs.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

While this should be displayed on 7:30 Report, ABC NEWS etc

In total agreement. Specifically those two programs.

According to Trump, it is all bullshit.