W
WindOfMayhem
Guest
Hab erstmal ein paar Kumpels für seinen Newsletter angemeldet. Deren Meinung ist mir wichtig.
Hahahaha!
Das mach ich auch^^
I love the internet: Sinnbefreites, Kurioses und Spassiges aus aller Welt (NSFW!)
Hahahaha!
Das mach ich auch^^
Spatenpauli
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Du denkst richtig.So macht man sich Freunde, denke mal hier wird nichtmal eine Verifizierung verlangt.
Perfect Stranger
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Spatenpauli
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Och, sowas machen wir öfters. Ist halt der robuste westfälische Humor.Wer solche Freunde hat, der braucht keine Feinde.
D
deleted_53
Guest
D
deleted_53
Guest
Lollo84de
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Beim betrachten dieses Videos stellte sich mir die Frage, wer sich eigentlich dafür interessieren würde, wenn ich meinen schmalen Hintern in die Kamera recken würde...
Gibt es was sinnloseres als "Hinterwackel-Videos"?
PS... zu Analysezwecken, guck ich mir das aber nochmal an... kurz... *hust*
PPS Bei meiner Analyse stellte ich fest, dass ich nach einem solchen Auftritt wohl mit nem mittelschweren Bandscheibenvorfall in den unteren Wirbel für etliche Zeit ausfallen würde...
Außerdem käm ich mir blöd vor, wenn ich auf allen Vieren über den Wohnzimmerboden hoppel... Achja, und Leggins hab ich auch nicht :P
D
deleted_53
Guest
DeadRabbit
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Also ich finds astrein.
D
deleted_53
Guest
Kiss of Death
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Vinylian
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Die Stadt mit dem "Blub"
IlMonco
Till Deaf Do Us Part
Der Kommentar unter dem Video hat mir heftiges Lachen abgerungen.
gentelman987
Bitte einmal nackt hahahah ich wieg 100 kg aber ich steh auf dünne weiber die ich erdrücken kann
D
deleted_53
Guest
Ein Artikel (kein Joke): http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
http://journal.sjdm.org/
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Gordon Pennycook
∗
James Allan Cheyne
†
Nathaniel Barr
‡
Derek J. Koehler
†
Jonathan A. Fugelsang
†
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from p
hilosophers, its reception (critical or ingen-
uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation.
Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which
consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true
and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented
participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly orga
nized into statements with syntactic structure but
no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”).
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull-
shit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually r
elevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style,
supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among p
rofundity judgments for more conventionally profound
(e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “
Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These
results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type o
f bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter
of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagu
eness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our re-
sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an
important component of pseudo-profound bullshit
receptivity.
Keywords: bullshit, bullshit detection, dual-process theories, analytic thin
king, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial
ideation, complementary and alternative medicine
http://journal.sjdm.org/
On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
Gordon Pennycook
∗
James Allan Cheyne
†
Nathaniel Barr
‡
Derek J. Koehler
†
Jonathan A. Fugelsang
†
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from p
hilosophers, its reception (critical or ingen-
uous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation.
Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which
consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true
and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented
participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly orga
nized into statements with syntactic structure but
no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”).
Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bull-
shit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually r
elevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style,
supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among p
rofundity judgments for more conventionally profound
(e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “
Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These
results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type o
f bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter
of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagu
eness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our re-
sults also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an
important component of pseudo-profound bullshit
receptivity.
Keywords: bullshit, bullshit detection, dual-process theories, analytic thin
king, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial
ideation, complementary and alternative medicine
D
deleted_53
Guest
D
deleted_53
Guest
Similar threads
