MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

Supporters of Trump, Cruz, and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley

TrumpRubioCruzAfricaOnlineAfricaOnlineThe new study on voter receptivity to bunkum uses bullshit statements generated by earlier work by a group of Canadian psychologists. The researchers conducted a number of experiments in which they evaluated subjects for their reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra and from websites that mimic Chopra’s opaque gnomic style.

Some examples of generated pseudo-profound bullshit included: “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty”; “Imagination is inside exponential space time events"; and, “We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself.” Chopra actually tweeted the following: “Attention and intention are the mechanics of manifestation”; “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe”; and, “As beings of light we are local and non-local, time bound and timeless actuality and possibility.”

To get a baseline, the researchers compared in some studies subjects’ ratings of profundity of such mundane observations as, “Newborn babies require constant attention,” and, “Lazy people usually don’t succeed in life.” They also had some subjects rate the profundity of motivational statements such as, “A river cuts through rock, not because of its power but its persistence,” and, “Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”

In this earlier study, the Canadian researchers wanted to find out what sorts of people (if any) were particularly susceptible to thinking that bullshit somehow contained profound meaning. In some studies they test subjects for their IQs and analytic abilities. They report that there are just some people who broadly accept all kinds of epistemically suspect beliefs such as existence of ghosts, paranormal phenomena, conspiratorial ideation, and the efficacy of alternative medical treatments like homeopathy. They describe such people as being "uncritically open-minded."

“Although epistemically suspect claims may or may not themselves qualify as bullshit, the lack of skepticism that underlies the acceptance of epistemically suspect claims should also promote positive bullshit receptivity,” generously observe the researchers. Interestingly, they find that bullshit sensitivity (the ability to detect it) is associated with lower paranormal belief, but not conspiratorial ideation or acceptance of alternative medicine. Religious believers also tended to rate bullshit statements as being more profound. The researchers did find that “increased bullshit sensitivity was associated with better performance on measures of analytic thinking."

In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States. They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote. Once politically pigeonholed, the subjects are asked evaluate the list of bullshit and mundane statements from the earlier study for their profundity. They report:

Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bullshit and support for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bullshit statements. Of note, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to see profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley. Overall, small-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.

As reported above, the researchers found that liberals were more likely to rate “mundane” statements as being profound, yet the example they give of a mundane statement – “A wet person does not fear the rain” - actually comes from the list of motivational statements in the earlier Canadian study on bullshit.  It is worth noting that in the earlier study, motivational statements were consistently rated as being more profound than bullshit statements.

I am pretty confident that I would not have found a scintilla of profundity in a single one of the pseudo-Chopra or real-Chopra bullshit statements. Meanwhile back to the low dishonest campaign for the presidency.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lee G||

    This should be fun

  • ImanAzol||

    I had trouble parsing this article due to the bullshit within.

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    *lights the Agile signal*

  • Lee G||

    Let me help:

    We are in the midst of a high-frequency blossoming of interconnectedness that will give us access to the quantum soup itself.
  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Needs more space penises

  • SQRLSY One||

    "The broke bloke does not fear taxes".

    "That person who ain't got a pot to piss in, supports "sharing" and "compassion from Government Almighty".

    Am I PROFOUND, or WHUT!??!?!?!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Also this: Why do we not hybridize computer-generated “defensive publishing” with bullshit generation, and generate (and defensively publish) every combination of every conceivable notion, possible or not, plausible or not, and thereby, fend off patent trolls FOREVER!
    For more details, see http://www.rocketslinger.com/N.....blication/

  • cavalier973||

    Everything AC says is infinitely profound.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Oh, good.

  • WTF||

    What, you don't enjoy the shit storm that usually follows an article about a psuedoscientific "study" designed to advance a partisan agenda? Run out of popcorn?

  • Tak Kak||

    “Newborn babies require constant attention”

    Obviously bullshit, it's "stupid babies need the most attention"

  • WTF||

    Dead babies can take care of themselves.

  • Lee G||

    They aren't much fun though.

    Or is that puppies?

  • WTF||

    You can juggle puppies. Babies are a little too big for that.

  • Agent Cooper||

    You're not aborting them early enough. Duh.

  • WTF||

    Those are just clumps of cells. Duh!

  • RBS||

    Not preemies.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, puppies suck.

  • Charles Easterly||

    For Lee G

  • Loki||

    Live babies aren't much fun either. Little shit factories...

  • ||

    You can't use a pitchfork to unload a truckload of bowling balls.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Yes you can. You'd use it in a similar way as a shovel. Though it might be superior to a shovel if the spacing between the forks is sufficient for the bowling balls not to roll side to side. You can also use it to push them towards and open tailgate if you're just emptying the truck.

  • If-by-whiskey||

    Whoa.. Mind = blown

  • Loki||

    Although the most efficient way to empty a truckload of bowling balls is to open the tailgate then drive really fast in reverse and then slam on the breaks.

  • UnCivilServant||

    If and only if your only metric is getting the bowling balls out of the truck, you could try using a jack to raise the front of the truck, it will take less energy and thus be more 'efficient'.

  • Restoras||

    Except that takes too much time, and since time is money it's dumb.

  • UnCivilServant||

    There are different definitions of "efficient", we have to define our metrics before we can claim a method to the the "most efficient"

  • ||

    This is why I keep coming to HnR- for the science!

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's not science, it's SCIENCE!

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    "I fucking love science"

    /every single fucking derpy prog meme on facebook

  • Loki||

    Fine:

    the most efficient fun way to empty a truckload of bowling balls is to open the tailgate then drive really fast in reverse and then slam on the breaks.

  • ||

    I'm not a scientist, but I think this is mistaken. It is actually the 3rd.

    The first most efficient fun way is to set it to drive off a cliff next to an identical truck full of feathers.

    The second most efficient fun way is to back it into a truck full of bowling pins but you have to be wearing the proper shoes.

  • ImanAzol||

    Wouldn't the brakes work better?

  • MichaelL||

    Can you roller skate in a buffalo herd? Go a fishin' in a watermelon patch?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Nonsense! I've always found the more quick-witted ones were the first to try to run off from the uranium mines. Those are the ones you've got to keep your eye on.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I would like the seed sources for random bullshit expanded to include drivel from the random thesis generators that some of the commentariat played around with a week or two back. The over-reliance on one flavor of bullshit has to be controlled for in methodology.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    They could use some of the social justice vocabulary they just added to the dictionary. Doesn't get more nonsensical than that.

  • PapayaSF||

    If they had, they would have had the opposite results.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Yup. This study reeks of unaccounted-for biases.

  • Vapourwear||

    Don't enact their labor for them.

  • JWW||

    The could have also gotten 100% pure refined bullshit from Bernie supporters.

  • Lee G||

    In the new study in the journal PLoS One, two German researchers test to find out if bullshit detection (or lack thereof) is associated with specific political views in the United States

    Europeans love analyzing US political views

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Yeah, Hans, we were dumb enough to kick your Kraut asses twice."

  • WTF||

    They also love "proving" that the mean old conservatives are also dumb.

  • Jerryskids||

    And the liberals just eat up this sort of bullshit that "proves" they're less-susceptible to bullshit, too, don't they? It's like they don't even know what an irony meter is.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I guess when you are not counting "belief in the virtues of socialism" as bullshit, the results get skewed

  • PapayaSF||

    Yup.

  • Free Society||

    Meanwhile Germans tend to accept their self-loathing and their original sin of being German as objective truths. Any European peoples who don't ride the guilt train with them are crude knuckle-dragging far-right extremists that ought to be silenced.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    So can we start referring to "the bullshit studies"?

  • Citizen X||

    That's the title of my memoir.

  • lap83||

    Trump is a bullshitter. Hillary prefers outright lying. Sanders is just an idiot.

  • kinnath||

    yes. most people can't understand the difference between bullshitting and lying.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Bailey is obsessed with insulting Trump supporters. Unfair study. Very mean!

  • Citizen X||

    Sad!

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    Bad!

  • WTF||

  • Playa Manhattan.||

  • Chipwooder||

    Easier to imitate - Trump tweets or Tom Friedman columns?

  • WTF||

    Yes?

  • Glide||

    Overrated Ronald Bailey hasn't accomplished anything, much like loser Ted Cruz! He should watch out!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    That cad!

  • Careless||

    But note that Trump supporters were the least likely of the three to buy in

  • SimonD||

    Maybe that's because they are used to Mr. Trump's weapons-grade bullshit, and have built up a tolerance.

    PS: That is still preferable to Mrs. Clinton's overt corruption and constant bald-faced lying, or Senator Sanders's Marxist propaganda.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    This is such a meaningless study. It's like they're trying to provide an example of Bailey's next "Here's why social science is garbage" post.

  • Bodica Slayer of Woodchip||

    But what do Millenials think? Let's ask Ken . . .

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    But see Obama, Barack

  • CatoTheChipper||

    It's bullshit all the way down. Including this "study" of bullshit.

    But Chopra's taxpayer-funded bullshit is the worst.

  • Hayeksplosives||

    Sez the guy who is convinced of the certainty of anthropogenic global warming.

  • MikeP2||

    D'oh!

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    "Make America Great Again" = Bullshit!

    "War on Women" = Totally Not Bullshit!

    See?!?! My scientific study totally confirmed my pre-existing beliefs!

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Disclosure: I think there's actually some merit to the Whole Foods Jerk Store study.

  • lap83||

    I agree that the former is bullshit. The latter is just crazy gibberish meant to distract from Hillary's corruption. So technically not bullshit?

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Oh, it's definitely bullshit. More bullshit than the former, even, because it's falsifiable.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    hmmm, but isn't that the point of bullshit? That it's not really falsifiable, because it's just blather with no substance? In that case, the Hillary one isn't bullshit. It's a lie. There is a difference (from what I've read on the subject of bullshit - yes, there are entire philosophical books on bullshit).

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Which do you think is worse?

    The electorate believing platitudes, or outright lies?

  • ||

    Definitely the electorate.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Oh, both are sad and awful. I'm just saying that there is actually an art to bullshit. Bill was an outstanding bullshitter. Hillary is just a liar. I just think it's a fascinating distinction. That people believe either one is sad. I just think it takes a little bit more wits and cleverness to realize that bullshit is bullshit. All you need against lies is the truth (and an unbiased mind willing to accept the truth - not derp, but Hillary'z gonna first womyn prez!)

  • Ship of Theseus||

    *Note: I'm not saying I agree with the study, or that liberals are somehow more clever. I doubt very much that the average dope can see through political bullshit (or lies), when it comes to their favorite pet politician.

  • ||

    Yes with Bill, he was the bullshitter. With Hillary, her supporters are actively bullshitting themselves.

    Self perpetuating.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    Well someone has to make up the excuses since Hillary sucks at it.

  • lap83||

    The one who isn't a woman is worse, because vagina

  • waffles||

    Dude, I fucking love science.

  • ||

    Dude, I just love fucking.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    That's not what it's called in the penal code.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Some just love fucking dudes. It's in the penile code.

  • ||

    I don't believe you got science's consent, RAPIST. *glares*

  • SugarFree||

    As for your question in the AM Links, Bobarian, scroll down to the end of the description section.

  • ||

    I believe that Hillary's is real.

    And prehensile.

  • db||

    Why in the world would the researchers ask questions meant to determine a subject's political leanings *first*?

    I seriously hope that they appropriately blinded both the researchers and subjects, otherwise the whole thing risks becoming "bullshit."

  • MikeP2||

    of course its all bullshit. The only reason to make it 'political' is to gain attention for a bogus study. Was probably the work of two early grad students grasping for a thesis topic.

  • Jerryskids||

    But you do believe there actually was a study done, right? So who believes in bullshit now?

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    We can't scare quote everything we write. At some point the scare quotes are implied.

  • WTF||

    Any study that is not double-blinded is bullshit.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Any study that is conducted using largely white, upper-class college students is bullshit as well.

  • Microaggressor||

    Bullshit this, bullshit that; I keep hearing Penn Jillette's voice in this article and comments.

  • SIV||

    Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals
    Supporters of Trump, Cruz and Rubio more likely to see profoundness in bullshit than supporters of Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley

    Study participants? Canuck co-eds:

    University of Waterloo undergraduates N= 280, 58 male,222 female
  • SIV||

    Ah, my apologies. This was the pool for the original Canadian "study", not the Kraut "replication".

  • waffles||

    What's up with that gender ratio?

  • db||

    Dr. Peter Venkman ran the study.

  • SugarFree||

    "The history book on the shelf is always repeating itself."

  • Charles Easterly||

    Blame the squirrels?

    *snickers*

  • SusanM||

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    Where are you getting that? Their methodology says they used Americans, although even then the methodology is hilarious"

    "We obtained complete data from 196 US-American individuals (43.4% women; Mage = 36.4) who participated in an online study via Amazon Mechanical Turk, a service where researchers can post jobs (such as responding to a questionnaire) which can be completed by users of Amazon Mechanical Turk (cf. [10])."

    "Participants rated the candidates on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very unfavorable, through 2 = somewhat unfavorable, 3 = neither unfavorable nor favorable, 4 = somewhat favorable, to 5 = very favorable. If participants had not heard of a particular candidate or did not have an opinion they were asked to not mark anything. Means and standard deviations were as follows: Hillary Clinton (M = 2.76, SD = 1.43), Martin O’Malley (M = 2.54, SD = 1.03), Bernie Sanders (M = 3.53, SD = 1.47), Ted Cruz (M = 2.13, SD = 1.29), Marco Rubio (M = 2.42, SD = 1.24), Donald Trump (M = 1.94, SD = 1.39)."

    So the people who took this were disproportionately left-wing men who self-selected for an online survey. This group does not strike me as representative of the population generally.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    Oh, there were two studies discussed in the article. Uh..carry on.

  • waffles||

    So get yourself on mechanical Turk and get polled Irish!

  • Trigger Warning||

    What in the unholy fuck is Amazon Mechanical Turk? What's up with the retarded name?

  • SugarFree||

    The Turk

    The Turk, also known as the Mechanical Turk or Automaton Chess Player was a fake chess-playing machine constructed in the late 18th century. From 1770 until its destruction by fire in 1854 it was exhibited by various owners as an automaton, though it was eventually revealed to be an elaborate hoax.[1] Constructed and unveiled in 1770 by Wolfgang von Kempelen (Hungarian: Kempelen Farkas; 1734–1804) to impress the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, the mechanism appeared to be able to play a strong game of chess against a human opponent, as well as perform the knight's tour, a puzzle that requires the player to move a knight to occupy every square of a chessboard exactly once.

    The Turk was in fact a mechanical illusion that allowed a human chess master hiding inside to operate the machine. With a skilled operator, the Turk won most of the games played during its demonstrations around Europe and the Americas for nearly 84 years, playing and defeating many challengers including statesmen such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Benjamin Franklin. The operators within the mechanism during Kempelen's original tour remain a mystery. The device was later purchased in 1804 and exhibited by Johann Nepomuk Mälzel. The chess masters who secretly operated it included Johann Allgaier, Boncourt, Aaron Alexandre, William Lewis, Jacques Mouret, and William Schlumberger.
  • Trigger Warning||

    Lesson for the day. Thanks!

  • SugarFree||

    Don't blame me for the nightmares. He will come to you.

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    Or come ON you

  • SugarFree||

    [throws handful of sticky screws and bolts in Trigger's sleeping face]

  • Trigger Warning||

    hahaha

  • Restoras||

    I thought he was a top narcotics man?

  • SugarFree||

    You just a pimp, Restoras. You could have never out-fought Tonio.

  • Loki||

    Amazon Mechanical Turk.

    So, I'm guessing an 18th century chess playing machine that was built by an Amazonian womyn?

  • Glide||

    Plus 36.4 of those women were mages, and if Baldur's Gate taught me anything it was that mages have a different wisdom stat than most of the voting age population.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Low Wis, High Int has led to more tragedies in human history than commonly believed.

    Fucking mages.

  • GILMORE™||

    The report in the first link cites 4 separate studies with different samples; the table in the second link seems to aggregate all of them.

    The first was entirely U.Waterloo students, the other 3 were paid respondents from Amazon's "Mechanical Turk"(*?) service.... basically 'arbitrary english-speaking online respondents'.

    I think probably more significant than the characteristics of the samples is that online questionnaires are basically a really shitty way to get any real info from anyone about anything. Their notes indicate ~20% or more of their results were tossed from the samples because people were seen to be answering at random or ignored content of questions when tested for accuracy of response.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump."

    Proof that Trump isn't really a conservative?

  • waffles||

    Yesterday I read the wikipedia entry for "Alt-Right". Did you know libertarians are alt-right? The article generalizes thusly, it includes beliefs such as Dark Enlightenment, libertarianism, monarchism, nativism, right-wing populism, business nationalism, identitarianism, white nationalism, antisemitism, racialism, white supremacy and American secessionism.

    Aren't we all American secessionists? Fuck the Queen. Anyway I thought you'd like a reminder that you're all monsters and are responsible for everything bad in this world.

  • SIV||

    "Alt-right" is a catch-all for anything right-of-center outside the now-rejected Republican/conservative establishmentarianism

  • Free Society||

    "Alt-right" is a catch-all for anything right-of-center outside the now-rejected Republican/conservative establishmentarianism

    This.

  • Jerryskids||

    You almost got the idea.

    Alt-right includes white supremacists. That's all you need to know. Anybody right-of-center (keeping in mind that Bernie Sanders is slightly left-of-center and Barack Obama is a solid centrist under the Left's standard) is a white supremacist dog-whistler. If John McCain and Mitt Romney are right-wing extremists, where do you go from there to find something to call anybody to the right of them? And where will they go when "white supremacist" loses its potency?

    The gold standard of extremist-painting has been the infamous "Daisy" ad* implying a vote for Barry Goldwater is a vote for nuclear annihilation but I predict we will see a new high in low set this campaign. A Hillary Clinton look-alike offering blow jobs to Hassidic Jews wearing Goldman Sachs name tags? A Donald Trump stand-in on the phone with Putin offering to trade a nuclear triad (whatever that is) for a 15-year old Lithuanian bride, but it's gotta be a blonde - one with big tits?

    *Never forget it was the calm voice of reasonable rationality and deep thinking Bill Moyers who approved this message.

  • WTF||

    Wikipedia never fails to entertain when it comes to anything political.

  • Zeb||

    Just seems like a catch-all for fringey political movements that are decidedly not of the left wing. Which would be fine if people were smart and/or honest enough to look past the fact that some of the groups listed are racist idiots.

    I've never even heard of "Dark Enlightenment".

  • waffles||

    I think it is a subreddit where everyone pretends to be a modern day Machiavelli.

  • Chipwooder||

    Monarchism? There are American monarchists who want a reunion with England?

  • SIV||

    No they want King Donald Queen Melania and Princess Ivanka first in the line of succession.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'll take them over the Kennedys or the Clintons (gag!) any day.

  • Loki||

    The article generalizes thusly, it includes beliefs such as Dark Enlightenment, libertarianism, monarchism, nativism, right-wing populism, business nationalism, identitarianism, white nationalism, antisemitism, racialism, white supremacy and American secessionism.

    The could just shorten it to "it includes beliefs such as Dark Enlightenment, libertarianism, monarchism, nativism, right-wing populism, business nationalism, identitarianism, white nationalism, antisemitism, racialism, white supremacy and American secessionism that the Progressive Left and Establishment Republicans don't like."

  • R C Dean||

    Bailey, this better be part one of a two-part prank post, where part two mocks and laughs at this obviously idiotic study.

    From what I can tell, you know who is most susceptible to bullshit? Someone who can't tell that Germans studying Canadian students reactions to a subjective phenomenon casts absolutely zero light on American . . . well, anything.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    But it's presented as a study! A study!!

    You can't argue with that. It's scientific! Settled science, even.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    I think i've told this story before, but I'm gonna tell it again, dammit!!!

    In undergrad, I took a public opinion polling class where the first 25% of the class was about how utterly unreliable and worthless public opinion polling (and social science, in general) is. Then, we were expected to completely and thoroughly forget that lesson and start learning about all the "brilliant conclusions" that all these massively flawed polls were coming to.

  • Free Society||

    The validity of that study was immediately questionable when he pointed to two German social scientists orchestrating it. Social scientists already skew overwhelmingly left, almost as unanimously as you can get in large groups, and that they're German social scientists on top of that kind of rules out the already unlikely alternative.

    In Germany you don't get into graduate programs for social sciences unless you can prove that you've tried to kill yourself under the crushing weight of your white guilt, at least three times.

  • R C Dean||

    This was the pool for the original Canadian "study", not the Kraut "replication".

    Way to set me up for a snarkfail, guys.

  • SugarFree||

    Until the 1980s, the failure to understand the metaphorical meaning to an unfamiliar proverb was a diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.

    For example, when presented with "A new broom sweeps clean," schizophrenics would interpret the phrase to be about new brooms have better bristles for increased cleaning capacity, as so forth. They would exhibit an inability to understand the metaphorical idea presented that a fresh perspective on an intractable problem is a useful way to break a loggerhead.

    It is still used in some quarters as a test for abstraction disorders.

  • UnCivilServant||

    That is a terrible test. And that example clearly indicates that they failed to apply the metaphor themselves, as there are a dozen different ways to read that line.

    Some of which are terribly abstract

  • db||

    Wait, so initially assuming that most statements are meant literally is a sign of schizophrenia?

    Next we'll learn that expecting and assuming honesty from others is a sign of mental illness.

    Fuck me.

  • AlmightyJB||

    What about the inability to recognize sarc?

  • db||

    Sarcasm itself is a symptom of antisocial tendencies. Report for retraining.

  • Loki||

    You joke, but:

    MALEVOLENT/ SADISTIC-PARANOID SOCIOPATH, PSYCHOPATH, ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY TYPE:

    Belligerent, aggressive, sarcastic, rancorous, biting, vicious, brutal, malignant, fearless, shameless, fierce, resentful; anticipates to be betrayed and seeks for punishment, yearns for revenge, has cruel disregard for others.

    I'd say at least 90% of us here on H&R are "malevolent/ sadistic-paranoid sociopaths" based on this.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    *tips a beer and nods towards Loki*

    Cheers. Now if you'll excuse me, my neighbours' loud mouthed bugle puppy has wandered into my back yard and is yelping and shitting everywhere.

    "Who wants a bowl of radiator fluid? You do? Yes you do. YES YOU DO!"

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    Wait, so initially assuming that most statements are meant literally is a sign of schizophrenia?

    Fuck me.

    LOL

  • SugarFree||

  • db||

    Well if you are told you are about to read a proverb and then don't get that it is a metaphor, I agree you either don't understand the concept of a metaphor or a proverb, or there might be some mental disability. But hearing a metaphor for the first time and taking a minute to figure it out probably shouldn't be considered symptomatic of mental illness.

    How did they control for basic understanding of the language in which the test was administered? Simply not being fluent isn't mental illness, nor is stupidity or functional illiteracy.

  • SugarFree||

    No clue.

    I was just mentioning it in relation to how many of those "profound statements" sound like proverbs at first glance.

  • db||

    It's interesting for sure, and I imagine it should be considered part of a battery of tests and not a standalone indication of any particular condition.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Simply not being fluent isn't mental illness, nor is stupidity or functional illiteracy.

    Phew!

    Thats good too no. Im safe, then.

    *Resumes playing chess with giant invisible rabbit*

  • cavalier973||

    Just stop it, db; you're freaking the rest of us out with your schizophrenic ramblings.

  • db||

    Nurse says it's time to go back to my room anyway.

  • cavalier973||

    What you need to do is throw the hydrotherapy console through the window and make your escape.

  • ||

    Be very afraid, there could be exploding nipples, mutton flaps, and talking hair at the end of that link.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know about schizophrenia (I would have thought more autism spectrum), but it's a sign of some kind of mental oddness. An awful lot of what people say is not to be taken literally.

  • SugarFree||

    I wonder about this too. It may be that at the time the test was developed, autistics were being categorized as schizophrenics or with other development delays.

    The tendency to take everything at face value is a trait that I've noticed in dealing with people on the autistic spectrum.

  • Citizen X||

    Autism WAS considered a type of schizophrenia until the late 60s or early 70s, if i recall correctly.

  • SugarFree||

    I knew that many were considered simply "retarded" based on uncommunicativeness, wasn't such about schizophrenia.

  • Caput Lupinum||

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't know about schizophrenia (I would have thought more autism spectrum),

    It seems that way to me as well.

    based on my own experience w/ schizos.... "New Broom Sweeps Clean" could just as well mean "Nuclear Weapon Sleeps in Jelly", which is just their way of saying, "I need a cigarette".

    as you note, its Autistic types that more typically have trouble with non-literal meanings.

  • Caput Lupinum||

    Here is an article that explains how this relates to schizophrenia. Both schizophrenics and people on the autism spectrum have trouble with abstract thoughts, albeit for different reasons. Autistics are generally very focused on 'convergent' thought patterns, defined in the article as

    Convergent thinking is thought to be, in the field of psychology, a cognitive process in which ideas are examined for their logical validity or in which a set of rules are followed.

    Understanding most metaphors relies on making logical leaps that may not be readily apparent, so autistic people can have trouble grasping the intended meaning. Schizophrenics, on the other hand, are incapable of convergent thought and are characterized by their divergent thought patterns. As such, they focus mostly on concrete aspects of things, as those are the most readily accessed by them. They may be able to understand a metaphor on an abstract level, but they know they will not have the same abstractions a normal person does, so they focus on the concrete instead.

  • GILMORE™||


    ERROR
    logo
    Sorry!
    Our servers are experiencing higher-than-normal load. Please try again in a few minutes.

    Why did you link me to an Error-death-hole? YOU HATE ME DONT YOU? (stuff arms in socks)

  • UnCivilServant||

    Sorry, but more than one person visiting the site in a day was way more than they were built to take. They never expected so much attention.

  • Caput Lupinum||

    Nutrasweet started this thread, you can't expect the links to actually function correctly.

  • db||

    I didnt realize SugarFreeing was inheritable (infectious?).

  • SugarFree||

    They blame me for everything. I'm basically Isreal.

  • R C Dean||

    What they are really doing is showing that proverbs have two levels of meaning: the literal level, which has to work so that the metaphorical level can also work.

  • Zeb||

    Who? I think we already knew that.

    Psychology is all kind of woo-woo. But I don't think that means that tests like this are necessarily entirely meaningless. People with autism or schizophrenia will be more likely to miss or be unable to extract the metaphorical meaning.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That would just remind me to buy my wife a new broom for Valentine's Day

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    You know how to do it right.

  • R C Dean||

    Indeed. I learned early that "plugs in" and "gift for wife" do not co-exist. Since a vacuum cleaner is right out, she's left with a broom.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You must have a boring wife if none of her interests involve something that can be powered by electricity.

  • ||

    Hitachi Wand. There, saved your marriage.

  • lap83||

    Depends if it's cool or not. My husband got me a convertible laptop last year, I love it. (It plugs in if you count the charger) But a vacuum cleaner is not cool.

  • waffles||

    Well this is alarming, I'm schizophrenic?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought you were bi-polar

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    I'm schizophrenic and so am I

  • waffles||

    This test proves that psychiatrists are just jealous of my majick powers. I'm SANE!

  • If-by-whiskey||

    Thought #1 after reading test quote: "Of course it does. New broom. New bristles."

    Thought #2: "Fuck it. So I'm a schizophrenic. Let's eat."

  • Zeb||

    I believe the test takers are told that the statements are proverbs.

  • lap83||

    I remember that from The Thin Blue Line, they used those types of questions on Randall Adams to "verify" if he was a killer

  • cavalier973||

    A woman attends her mother's funeral, and meets a man that she had never seen before. They talk a while, and strike up a rapport, but she forgets to get his phone number, and can't exactly remember his name. Three weeks later, she murders her sister.

    Why?

  • UnCivilServant||

    For the mother's inheritance

  • waffles||

    You'’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’'s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on it's back. The tortoise lays on it's back, it's belly baking in the hot sun, beating it's legs trying to turn it'self over, but it can't, not without your help. But you'’re not helping. Why is that?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Because I've just shot the person administering the stupid as all hell voight-kompf test.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    What's a tortoise?

  • UnCivilServant||

    What's a tortoise?

    It's like a rock with legs.

  • Zeb||

    No I'm not.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I'm a scientist studying the ability of tortoises to right themselves when upended.

    What mental illness do I have?

  • UnCivilServant||

    None, but you are a Replicant, and must be retired.

    *blam*

  • Charles Easterly||

    I've heard a variation of this before, cavalier973: She hopes the man she is interested in will attend her sister's funeral.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What sort of psychopath thinks that way?

  • SugarFree||

    What sort of psychopath thinks that way?

    The marrying kind.

  • Careless||

    That's the point, some kind of psychopath does think that way

  • UnCivilServant||

    That's the point, some kind of psychopath does think that way

    I would like to point you to the comment downthread about how even psychopaths don't think that way.

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/05.....nt_6128770

  • cavalier973||

    You are correct, Mr. Easterly.

  • UnCivilServant||

    There are far easier ways of finding someone - starting with the guestbook at the funeral, and inquiring among the other guests. And that before you take into account the technological changes since the scenario was originally written.

    Also, if the sister were suspected of being appropriately close to draw said individual to the funeral, her aid while alive would be more useful than this gamble.

    So again, who thinks that way?

  • Caput Lupinum||

    People that cannot analyze on the level you are. The woman in the scenario knows that the man she likes shows up at funerals. That is concrete evidence she knows directly from experience. Everything else requires making assumptions. If a person is not capable of making assumptions, they may try to see the man again by recreating the original event that got him to appear the first time.

    That limitation in thinking is not generally indicative of psychosis though. That level of mental degradation is more likely a sign of retardation or dementia. Either way, everyone would have been acutely aware that the woman in question had some issues well before she killed her sister.

  • Zeb||

    Being unable to imagine other minds that might operate differently from yours can also be a sign of a mental disorder.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    It could also be a sign of gayness. I think he puts from the rough.

  • Charles Easterly||

    The first time I heard the "conundrum" it didn't make sense to me until after I was given the answer.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I've heard it before and the official answer is still wrong.

  • Charles Easterly||

  • cavalier973||

    You are invited to a party by UnCivilServant. Someone hands you a stack of papers that appears to be a first manuscript of a story by one Sugarfree. A man walks by with each arm around a slightly overweight woman, and another man in the corner is speaking frightening yet beautiful poetry.

    There is a door with a sign that says Warty's Dungeon, but you don't enter.

    Why not?

  • ||

    Because Warty has shitty beer.

  • cavalier973||

    WRONG!

    It's because you are already in Warty's Dungeon. Read the freakin' CLUES, man...

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's obvious. The subject of the anecdote has suffered from a mental break due to the effect of being in the dungeon.

    I would never throw a party.

  • ||

    Warty's dungeon does NOT have a sign on the inside. Don't ask how I know this.

  • cavalier973||

    Besides, Warty's Dungeon beer isn't for drinking, it's more for rubbing on the skin to avoid getting the hose again. And the hose is not a garden hose, IYKWIMAITYD

  • Vernon Depner||

    Did this actually happen?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Here's what I first thought: The woman is obviously estranged from her family. If the man knew her mother well enough to attend the funeral, then obviously someone else there would have known who he was, and yet, she didn't ask anyone. Apparently whatever problems there were between the woman and her family escalated to a deadly confrontation. What mental illness do I have?

  • cavalier973||

    Naw, it was because her sister was the one who killed their mother.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Even worse, the sister told her the guy was their brother.

  • Zeb||

    I always hated those "lateral thinking problems" or whatever you call them. Probably means that I'm inclined toward the literal and tend to assume that puzzles like that have something to do with logic and facts.

  • UnCivilServant||

    For the record, manhole covers are round because the space they're covering is round.

  • lap83||

    She's a Clinton and the sister was part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

  • Loki||

    "A new broom sweeps clean," ... the metaphorical idea presented that a fresh perspective on an intractable problem is a useful way to break a loggerhead.

    If I had a million guesses I probably wouldn't have figured out that's the metaphorical idea behind that. But then again, I've suspected for a while now that I'm probably somewhere on the autism spectrum.

  • Vernon Depner||

    I would have guessed that it meant businesses usually fail after they're bought out.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Or that everyone quits or gets fired when a new boss takes over.

  • johnsschneider||

    I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    =========== http://www.worknow88.com

  • Trigger Warning||

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Thus far, and I am hoping for the part II mocking, the best take away from this is that "epistemically suspect beliefs" is a euphemism for bullshit.

    Otherwise is is pretty much bullshit itself, in an effort to deride those who do not embrace the progressive mantra that bigger and more government is the answer to everything. And any who do not glom on are to be forced to do so.

  • Eric||

    I'm skeptical as to what defines "conservative" in this poll.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    ^This.

    I imagine that 'conservative' = 'shit Trump spews' and/or 'anything badthink'

  • Raven Nation||

    Self-defining:

    They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote

  • Zeb||

    Which honestly seems like the best way to do it if you want to avoid politicizing it to the extent that is possible at all. While it says nothing about political ideology, it probably works well to divide people into what most would consider culturally conservative and liberal categories.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Minimum Wage. Climate change.

  • yet another dave||

    If you don't mock the psychologist. The psychologist will mock you.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I suspect that even if you do, you will still get mocked.

  • Juice||

    I WILL NOT BE MOCKED!

  • ||

    good heavens miss baileymoto, you're beautiful!

  • ||

    German "Scientist" Duped By Bullshit Data About Bullshit! Paradoxical Study Paradoxical!

    They first ask subjects where they fit on the usual conservative to liberal political spectrum and then for whom they planned to vote.

    So, once they collected information that has zero basis in truth or reality and is in no way falsifiable, they use it as a basal assumption for extrapolating facts... science!

    I assume the Libertarian element to have been completely self-weeded out when ze Germans asked, "Vor whom err you votink?" and they all said, "What is this bullshit? I'm outta here!"

  • sarcasmic||

    I would have expected a hundred angry comments from John by now. He must have the day off.

  • ||

    Maybe John is caught up in the literal meaning of “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty” and can't respond yet?

  • SugarFree||

    It's vacation season for the Feds.

  • sarcasmic||

    Phht. Coldest spring? The experts say it is the warmest spring since the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Who are you going to believe? The experts or your lying eyes? Besides, weather isn't climate. Except when it supports the narrative. Since a cold spring doesn't support the narrative, it doesn't matter. Now if it really was a warm spring, that would be a climate event. But you're just talking about weather. Stupid denier.

  • Free Society||

    Besides, weather isn't climate. Except when it supports the narrative.

    Weather isn't climate, Islamophobia, civil wars in third world countries and economic downturns in China are climate.

  • ||

    Except when it supports the narrative.

    I shit you not, the local NPR affiliate's most recent climate-change propaganda/program is literally titled *heat* of the *moment*. I assume some damned hipster chose the name ironically. The teasers are full of bullshit unrelated- or non-issues like sewers backing up because of rising water levels/increased percipitation.

  • True Scotsman||

    Who should I vote for US Senator from California?

  • db||

    Potato cheese spatula.

  • waffles||

    Is that a proverb? I want to make sure first or I will be forced to take you literally.

  • db||

    Intended as a riff on GILMORE'S comment above

    based on my own experience w/ schizos.... "New Broom Sweeps Clean" could just as well mean "Nuclear Weapon Sleeps in Jelly", which is just their way of saying, "I need a cigarette".
  • waffles||

    No thanks, I quit smoking over a year ago.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    The original study is setting off my bullshit detection:

    "volunteered to take part in the study in return for course credit."

    Offering incentive messes with the demographics of the survey. Respondents are drawn from ONE university, and are thus NOT representative of society as a whole. Response rates are NOT REPORTED which makes me suspect they are low, rendering the results bullshit.

    "Participants were also given an check. For this, participants were shown a list of activities (e.g., biking, reading) directly below the following instructions: “Below is a list of leisure activities. If you are reading this, please choose the “other” box below and type in ‘I read the instructions’”. This attention check proved rather difficult with 35.4% of the sample failing (N = 99). However, the results were similar if these participants were excluded. We therefore retained the full data set."

    IE, 35.4% of respondents WERE CLICKING THINGS AT RANDOM WITHOUT READING and they are still INCLUDED in the results!!

    It asserts and assumes Deepak Chopra's statements are bullshit. I don't know who Deepak Chopra is, so I have no clue whether this is true or not. But the study never proves this assertion.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    The study that focused on politics clearly had a goal from the outset. It also has no response rate. And a sample size of just 196 people.

    "Second, we want to note that the sample of the present study probably is not representative of the US as our study is restricted to the specific sample of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and has a relatively small sample size for an online survey. Thus, one cannot make inferences about the entire population of the US (or other populations of other countries)"

    So the second study is bullshit.

    "However, this does not undermine the significance of the present research"

    Yes it very much does. A small sample drawn from a single workplace is VERY indicative of this being insignificant, non-representative, bullshit you are ironically peddling as a profound study.

  • Loki||

    It all sounds like a load of bullshit to me. But of course, I'm a cynical asshole, so not surprising. Everything is bullshit.

  • If-by-whiskey||

    "We are in the midst of a self-aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself."

    Oh, so I suppose you big-time psychologists have a better way of aligning with the nexus, huh?

    Yeah. Didn't think so!

  • UnCivilServant||

    Well, exploding stars didn't work.

  • Libertarian||

    "Very amusingly, the researchers generated their pseudo-profound bullshit from actual tweets from mystic Deepak Chopra..."

    This is indeed amusing. But it begs the question, that if "conservatives" are prone to believing DC's BS, shouldn't they be the majority of his readers? I find that hard to believe.

  • Mickey Rat||

    But how susceptible are liberals to flattery?

  • ||

    Guys, it's social "science." Therefore, bullshit by definition. Its main purpose is for Progs to post links on Facebook and to give Ron something to fill this week's HnR quota.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    These studies are always so awful. We've got a country in south America suffering total economic collapse and people fighting in the streets over toilet paper, but yet all of the statements which predictably led up to that condition probably wouldn't have been rated as "bullshit".

  • If-by-whiskey||

    *looks over at 24 roll of Charmin in closet - smiles smugly*

  • Crust Juggler||

    *looks over at 24 roll of Charmin in closet - smiles smugly*

    You are a big Chipotle fan, aren't you?

  • lap83||

    Crust juggler? Is that one of those euphemisms I've been hearing so much about?

  • GILMORE™||

    Guest writer @ Jacobin explains why Venezuela has "a few problems"

    ...throughout the seventeen years of Chavista rule, the aggressiveness of the opposition has taken a heavy toll. Its tactics have pressured the government into an unholy alliance with a new business elite that is responsible for much of the nation’s corruption.

    If the destabilizing campaigns have had an adverse effect on the Venezuelan government, then the best time for it to address the negative effects of populist and pragmatic policies is when the opposition is weak. And the ideal moment is immediately following victories, when the enemy is discredited and demoralized.

    Three goals can best be achieved by taking advantage of favorable circumstances: further radicalization, delivering additional blows to the enemy, and declaring war on corruption and bureaucratic lethargy.

    The whole thing is worth reading if only to get a glimpse into a mind for whom "Economic History" is actually just a matter of political control and perception. Apparently, the failure of price-controls is the product of 'political opposition'... and a policy is "good" insofar as it is "Popular" - not whether it produces good-outcomes.

    Its hard to believe anyone could read this and not laugh out loud, but there are millions who think the same way.

  • GILMORE™||

    The socialist mindset seems to vacillate between arguing that

    "Things aren't working because we aren't 100% IN CHARGE!!" (shakes fist at opposition)
    and
    "Thing aren't working because we're in charge but THEY'RE NOT HELPING!!" (shakes fist at opposition)

    Hoffer nailed this sort of thing so well. If they didn't have "enemies" they'd have nothing. They're all about constantly screaming about their own victimization.

    which is basically the same point constantly being made about the SJW left.

  • UnCivilServant||

    which is basically the same point constantly being made about the SJW left.

    And thus cause enough to never give them an inch, because they will never be satisfied, and you'll just be suffering.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Everyone here likes to talk about "The mask slipping". It's amazing how fast they devolve into implying firing squads.

    Fuck this guy:

    Steve Ellner has taught economic history at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela since 1977 and also teaches in the Sucre Mission. He is the editor of Latin America’s Radical Left: Challenges and Complexities of Political Power in the Twenty-First Century (Rowman and Littlefield, 2014).
  • Loki||

    "Things aren't working because we aren't 100% IN CHARGE!!" (shakes fist at opposition)
    and
    "Thing aren't working because we're in charge but THEY'RE NOT HELPING!!" (shakes fist at opposition)

    Clearly what Venezuela needed was to simply "purge harder" and get rid of all those wreckers and kulaks and kkkapitalist saboteurs. /sarc

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm past the laughing point, and moving rapidly towards the "fondling my firearms" part whenever one of my local Chavistas in the city council, or Bernie Sanders starts screaming that their plans would work fine if it weren't for 'lack of vision'.

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    "Thus the discursive offensive against the Chavistas constitutes a broadside against state intervention in the economy even prior to Chávez’s ascent to power, and a vindication of neoliberal principles."

    Hey, I thought conservatives were the ones who are more susceptible to bullshit.

    That's actually another problem with this study - what the study actually finds is your propensity to believe there is *some* meaning in a meaningless sentence. There's another important kind of bullshit though - the tendency to find truth in something that is obviously false. If conservatives are more likely to ascribe meaning to meaningless sentences but liberals are more likely to believe the nonsense I posted up above, then they're equally likely to believe bullshit, just in different ways.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    what the study actually finds is your propensity to believe there is *some* meaning in a meaningless sentence


    Whether there is such a thing as a "meaningless sentence" is disputable. At a minimum, the linguistic writings I've read imply it is more difficult to randomly generate a grammatically correct sentence without meaning than with.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You know what else German researches believed to be true?

  • WTF||

    Hitler?

  • If-by-whiskey||

    That honey cures a cough?

  • cavalier973||

    That speaking English with a German accent makes one sound sinister?

  • SugarFree||

    I get this feeling that if you could make this a valid test, libertarians would destroy all the rest. Our primary virtue seems to be highly sensitive bullshit detectors.

  • db||

    Which is why everyone hates us. They dislike having to justify their belief in bullshit. We rub their noses in it.

    We are the heirs of Cassandra.

  • Libertarian||

    Or vindictive dog owners.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, we don't fall for Labour Value Theory, so we're already 100 points ahead in that regard.

  • SugarFree||

    By the way... no spoilers, but did any of you who watch

    Game of Thrones

    catch that the High Sparrow was endorsing the labor theory of value in his speech to Margaery?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm not caught up. I'll keep my ears open for that.

  • SugarFree||

    S6ep4

  • UnCivilServant||

    Impossible, the show ended after four seasons.

  • SugarFree||

    The first two episodes were slow, but 3 and 4 have been pretty good. I think just working off GRRM's plot outline has allowed them to stop throwing our fan service and focus on the plot.

    I mean, they could still fuck it up, but I am cautiously pleased.

  • GILMORE™||

    S6ep4

    I was pretty sure that was SugarFree's cool-kid way of spelling "Scepter!" .... which is his new musical project

  • SugarFree||

    It has an ambient house meets aquacrunk vibe, but with huffing.

  • GILMORE™||

    Wonky (also known as street bass, aquacrunk, lazer hip hop or purple sound) is an often-debated and unique/experimental genre of electronic music that uses mid-range unstable synths as well as complex and unusual time signatures. It appeared before summer 2008, among a range of musical genres, including hip hop (particularly glitch hop), grime, chiptune, dubstep, 90's G-funk, crunk, electro and broken beat.[1][dead link]

    So 'often debated' the one link about it is !(#*&$@ dead.

    I love how people will change exactly one small detail in a very-broad production style and call it an entirely new 'genre'.

    It was always endemic in everything "house" (where everything is 4/4, 120bpm, and made with roland 909/TB-303) ...but where you add a sitar? and suddenly its "Global WorldBeat" or something...

    but that awful habit had pretty much stayed away from "hiphop"-related things for 20+ years. Except for the UK maybe. Now its gone completely to shit though, where someone will use a slightly different synth patch over the same preset beats and its like WHOA CULTUREBOMB

  • UnCivilServant||

    If the average tin ear on the street can't tell the difference, it's not a new genre.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Metal is the worst about this. Some "genres" are literally a single band and their fans.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yeah, he basically says "You wore people's lives on your feet"

    (because expensive things take lots of man-hours of input for the materials and crafting)

  • ||

    Again, I think libertarians weren't deliberately excluded, they would self-select out of any/all such studies;

    "Who am I voting for? Stossel hasn't told me yet. None of your business."

    "You either show me a fat man who's about to die or you can shove this trolley car bullshit right up your ass!"

    "Where are all the really hard questions about circumcision, artisanal mayo, abortions, and mexican ass-sex?"

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    There are no hard questions about Mexican ass-sex other than 'how much Mexican ass-sex do I want.' And since no true libertarian would say anything other than 'all I can get,' that's not even that hard a question.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Although epistemically suspect claims may or may not themselves qualify as bullshit, the lack of skepticism that underlies the acceptance of epistemically suspect claims should also promote positive bullshit receptivity

    This sounds like bullshit to me, as it implies that true statements can still qualify as bullshit if people believe them for the wrong reasons.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bullshit.

  • JaimeRoberto||

    We are all susceptible to BS, it just depends on the type of BS being shoveled. If you want to see to liberal BS, go take a look at Cafe Hayek's ongoing takedown of Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus, a book that is definitely not aimed at conservatives.

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    Goddam this is a great thread.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I call bullshit.

  • Demoted Comment (Slammer)||

    NUTS!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Bailey is consistently one of my least favorite Reason editors and this post demonstrates why.

    First, the uncritical and deferential attitude displayed towards academia's products. This study is flawed from the outset (more below), and the premise is that these type of studies are relaying something closer to raw information rather than (often flawed) interpretation of arbitrary data sets. I can get this type of attitude from any I Fucking Love Science devotee and it imparts nothing I couldn't have received from the source.

    Second, affiliation with academia's allies and automatic disdain for academia's targets. This is a tribal and reflexive, rather than a scientific, mindset.

    Third, a lack of ability to parse beyond the above two points. “We are not the emergent property of a mechanical universe but the seasonal activity of a living universe” simply states that our existence is prior to our current physical embodiment. One can disagree with this notion (I do), but pre-existence of souls isn't 'bullshit' in the sense of making no sense or being trivially untrue. If it is being used as an example of 'bullshit' in this study, then it is not clear that the study is clear on what it is studying. The fact that it is generated text is irrelevant; if the works of Shakespeare were procedurally generated they would still hold meaning because texts are interpreted by their readers for meaning.

  • GILMORE™||

    Get this man some Deepak Chopra tweets, stat.

  • Crust Juggler||

    "Have a vision of life that inspires you, then try every day to grow closer to the fulfillment of that vision."

  • Los Doyers||

    We get it, he's Team Iron Man.

  • Crust Juggler||

    Fucking Bucky ruins everything. Wash your hair, Bucky!

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Hot chicks, tons of money, high-quality booze, super-science gadgets...

    Sorry, Cap, I'm signing whatever they ask. If they can enforce the signature, they can fuck me without the signature, too! If they can't enforce it, it's up to my discretion anyway.

  • Los Doyers||

    Choosing a side is actually a test to see if you're mentally ill and you all failed.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Oh, you mean "Posting on H&R test"!

  • Zeb||

    Did you miss the extensive reporting about how terribly flawed the products of academia are?

  • Irish is a Millennial, Poll Me||

    "First, the uncritical and deferential attitude displayed towards academia's products"

    Bailey frequently criticizes academia and has written multiple posts about replicability problems. I also don't think writing this post implies endorsement of the findings.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Bailey frequently criticizes academia and has written multiple posts about replicability problems


    Must've missed that. I've been reading less Reason these days; what I've read of Bailey is generally this kind of bullshit paired with mildly critical coverage of global warming shenanigans.

    I also don't think writing this post implies endorsement of the findings


    That view is not consistent with the post's headline

  • Zeb||

    Headlines are bullshit.

    Bailey makes posts about a lot of studies he doesn't necessarily agree with. It's part of being a reporter.

    You should read this

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Good article.

    It does, however, imply that a social sciences study is no more noteworthy than "Republican Office Serf Rants About Liberal Agenda Around Water Cooler" nor does it justify the headline. If science is "broken", then its results need to be reported on with great skepticism whether or not they confirm our biases.

    And this is hardly the first time Bailey has done this (see any study he's reported on that compares atheist/non-atheist, or most conservative-liberal comparative studies). The only ones I've seen reported critically on are those where his biases are impacted (for example, those studies that occasionally come out supposedly showing that atheists are more likely to act immorally than theists).

  • Zeb||

    Well, everybody's got their blind spots. But I think he is a very good science reporter overall.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The first time I used the word "epistemically" I thought I had made it up. I guess it's a real word.

  • SugarFree||

    As in "Damn, girl... you gots to be all epistemically hot to validate wit me."

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Of course you're be into torn vagina.

  • Crust Juggler||

    It wasn't torn before he got into it. Boom!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Or before you got out of it. Boom boom!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If a study about detecting bullshit is itself bullshit does that make it bullshit squared mathematically speaking?

  • The Grinch||

    It makes it a study that should never have been published or reported on uncritically.

  • Zeb||

    It's just a test to see how good libertarians are at detecting bullshit.

  • The Grinch||

    This study needs to recruit people who believe the bullshit that this study contains as participants. 197 participants drawn from Mechanical Turk users is hardly a sufficient or representative enough sample to draw any conclusions beyond what the results say about the sample itself. Also, given the nature of Mechanical Turk, I'd suspect the participants aren't naive subjects and may have been able to guess what the study was about, which can certainly effect the results.

    Additionally, the study relied on a self-rating of liberalism/conservatism. These things mean vastly different things to different people and the use of the self-rating scale almost certainly telegraphed at least part of the scope of the study to the participants. I'd suspect this study can be put in the growing pile of social science studies that don't mean jack shit.

  • Bob_R||

    The great value of this article is that I now know that Psychologists have been successful in finding a group of people less representative of humanity that college psychology students. Crap, you can get EVERYTHING from Amazon!

  • TGGeko||

    You can just smell the spin coming off of that headline

  • Homple||

    New article shows a writer fora libertarian publication is susceptible to any bullshit labelled a "study"

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    The profundity of BS is lost on Progs because their entire life is BS.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Is this the converse of lefties being hyper literal douchebags who can't see beyond the ends of their own noses?

  • woodNfish||

    Anyone who thinks unReason is truthful, or unbiased, or even conservative, or libertarian is brainwashed. unReason is as batshit crazy and full of lies as the NYT.

  • The Grinch||

    Saying they're as full of shit as the NYT is overstating it a bit but things have been getting worse around here. In general, Reason is biased against conservatives and is often flat out full of shit-so much so that I wonder sometimes whether they're trolling their readership. I'm a libertarian though and there aren't really many alternatives.

  • jschmidt||

    That's why the left is so easily suckered by Obama and the Democrats and buy everything they are lied to about. Take the lies of Obamacare, and the Iran deal. All manufactured by the admin and using the media to spread it.

  • ImanAzol||

    I had trouble parsing this article due to the bullshit within.

  • PhoebeHolloway||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $94 per hour.

    I work through this link.------------------------- http://www.earnmore9.com

  • ChelseaGilbert||

    My best friend's sister makes $97 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $15950 just working on the internet for a few hours.Go to tech tab for more work detail..

    .Read more on this web site...

    See Here Now.------------------------ http://www.earnmore9.com

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Conservatives More Susceptible to Bullshit Than Liberals

    That's debateable.
    Some of the biggest idiots I've met usually (but not always) come from the left.
    Perhaps one should check the political leanings of the people who made this statement.

  • Mark000||

    It's hard to take seriously a study that throws around the term "bullshit" like it's perfectly legitimate English, suitable for publication. Thumbs down.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online