It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)

In reply to Dalton (2016), we argue that bullshit is defined in terms of how it is produced, not how it is interpreted. We agree that it can be interpreted as profound by some readers (and assumed as much in the original paper). Nonetheless, we present additional evidence against the possibility tha...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJudgment and Decision Making Vol. 11; no. 1; pp. 123 - 125
Main Authors Pennycook, Gordon, Cheyne, James Allan, Barr, Nathaniel, Koehler, Derek J., Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Tallahassee Society for Judgment and Decision Making 01.01.2016
Society for Judgment & Decision Making
Cambridge University Press
Subjects
bullshit
Consciousness
Decision making
Evaluation
Hypotheses
Intention (Psychology)
paradoxNAKeywords
Research methodology
Studies
transcendence
United States
bullshit
meaning
intention
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In reply to Dalton (2016), we argue that bullshit is defined in terms of how it is produced, not how it is interpreted. We agree that it can be interpreted as profound by some readers (and assumed as much in the original paper). Nonetheless, we present additional evidence against the possibility that more reflective thinkers are more inclined to interpret bullshit statements as profound.
ISSN:1930-2975
1930-2975
DOI:10.1017/S1930297500007658