Pages

Sunday, June 04, 2023

Bullshit. We all know or think we know something about it. Few of us would say we use it. Academia has not ignored it, and "social scientists" have studied it.

First, without recalling how I encountered it online, this item stirred my curiosity. Actually, I don't want to bullshit you, it was this item that piqued my curiosity to go to the journal item. It seemed logical that effective bullshitting requires intelligence. If you would be inadequate as a carnival barker you'd never get or hold the job. So also, it seems, bullshitting if unintelligent would not become reinforced behavior.

Makes sense, moving on.

Well, next step, Google Scholar, to gauge the extent of the literature (plenty of it as things stand), and that search was done since there was only the original linked journal item in the popularization report, which also linked here. For the entire second item, the online version of the journal item, this link --


‘You can’t bullshit a bullshitter’ (or can you?):
Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various
types of misleading information
Shane Littrell, Evan F. Risko, & Jonathan A. Fugelsang
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published February 4th,
2021 by Wiley in The British Journal of Social Psychology, available online at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bjso.12447
When citing, please list and cite the published version.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shane Littrell, Department of
Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3G1
CONTACT: Shane Littrell, sslittrell@uwaterloo.ca

Plugging it into Google Scholar, it comes out looking lelgit, as does the lead author - corresponding author, Shane Littrell. 

This is good because I read that one, and it eased my mind as explaining how legislators were so easily drawn gulled into embracing the fiction, "Science of Reading," You can bullshit a bullshitter; In particular, the intelligent ones went for The Read Act, hook, line, and sinker

So both of those initial sources on bullshit fit the test of "does it make sense as possibly explaining things I want to understand."

It seemed interesting that Cambridge U. had a number of scholarly studies on bullshit published in its "Judgment and Decision Making" journal, including this item which on its p.7 of 9 pages, states":

 Our study and that of Pfattheicher and Schindler (2016)
are limited by the fact that only one type of bullshit, namely
pseudo-profound bullshit, has been considered. As noted by
Pennycook et al. (2015), there are many different forms of
bullshit. Bullshit in politics, for example, does not neces-
sarily rely on abstract buzzwords. Indeed, a politician might
deliberately simplify language to broaden his or her appeal,
stating something that is vague and platitudinous, like “I be-
lieve in America!” Presumably, this is because politicians
are typically more concerned with getting elected than they
are with expressing what they actually believe to be true
(Frankfurt, 2005). In any case, pseudo-profound bullshit
may be distinguishable from political bullshit, and it is pos-
sible to be receptive to one type but not the other. This is an
area for future research.
Taken in conjunction, the current findings and those of
Pfattheicher and Schindler (2016) are inconsistent with the-
oretical approaches suggesting that (a) there are no mean-
ingful, domain-general differences between liberals and
conservatives when it comes to cognitive style and reason-
ing ability (Conway et al., 2016; Crawford, 2012; Kahan,
2012, 2013), (b) individuals who exhibit thinking styles that
are simplistic and certainty-oriented are generally drawn to
leftist (vs. rightist) economic views (Feldman & Johnston,
2014; Malka & Soto, 2015), or (c) simplistic, certainty-
oriented cognitive styles would be associated with ideologi-
cally extreme (as opposed to moderate) preferences (Green-
berg & Jonas, 2003). On the contrary, we observed both
linear and quadratic effects that are consistent with the the-
ory of political ideology as motivated social cognition (Jost
et al., 2003).

Keep that term in mind, "pseudo profound bullshit." Also keep in mind, "vague and platitudinous, like “I believe in America!” (Or "I believe in cherry pie!")

I digress before reaching my final point to note that the authority cited at the start of the quote strikes me as probably bullshit - It is just too good to be true. You want to believe, it is so ripe to be enjoyed, but keeping skepticism awake as a principle, one has to wonder.

Now, those two phrases you were asked to keep in mind, and how that first quoted paragraph handles politicians; --- read this, and view this, and make a bullshit judgment. Is it, or is it not? pseudo-profound -- Believe in Minnesota, in cherry pie?

We will advocate for tax policy that supports the middle class, encourages investment and allows Minnesota's industries to thrive. We will advocate for energy, regulatory and spending policies that grow great jobs here in Minnesota instead of driving them out of state. We will advocate for sensible approaches to public safety that deal with violent and other serious crime. We will advocate for responsible government in a time of an extraordinary lack of accountability.

Some will question whether Minnesota's private sector businesses can truly fight for all Minnesotans. We answer that we can and we will. In this current moment it is the progressive left in our state that has become the tribune of the corporate ultra-elite and it shows in everything from political spending to legislative priorities.

Minnesotans need a different voice from the private sector, one that stands up for sober economic policy and for the priorities of ordinary Minnesotans. That's what we will be.

We will put forward a vision for Minnesota in which people of all backgrounds and walks of life have opportunities to work in well-paying jobs with dignity and live in flourishing communities with security. We will work for a state that sets aside the hard-left politics of the current moment — an aberration in our state's history — in favor of serious policies for a serious time. A state people flock to rather than exit.

Minnesota has immense human, economic, educational and natural resources. That the state has found itself faced with so many serious challenges is an indictment of its leadership. The MPBC will argue for the policies necessary to unleash the state's potential.

Minnesota has much to be proud of in its history. We are the state of explorers who sought the Northwest Passage, of soldiers who fought at Gettysburg; of doctors who built the Mayo Clinic, of farmers who have fed the world and miners whose labor helped build it, of freedom fighters who led battles for civil rights for all, of innovators who created some of the world's most successful companies and of statesman who have shaped American history.

Inheriting a state with this exceptional past, we must ensure that it has an exceptional future. We can face down the adversities of this current moment and set the course for decades of prosperity. We at the MPBC will work with all people of good faith to ensure that we do.

.....................................................

Some may find it interesting to note a conversation I had with the Bing chatbot:

Welcome back! What would you like to chat about?

Searching for: MPBC Minnesota Private Business Council insights

Generating answers for you…

Searching for: James Schultz Minnesota notable achievements

Generating answers for you…

Searching for: Doug Wardlow vs Jim Schultz Minnesota comparison

Generating answers for you…

Searching for: What gives MPBC gravitas?

Generating answers for you…

New topic


 

___________UPDATE_________

On the question of "psudo-profound bullshit" there is an online point - counterpoint where one study goes one way, and a rejoinder says, "what about . . .".

The latter response is that a computer can be programmed to generate intended pseudo-profound bullshit by stringing words together adhering to rules of syntax and then such strings, presented to a test subject might generate "transcendental" thoughts in the mind of the person being tested.

In that sense, Leonard Cohen's song, "First We Take Manhattan, And Then We Take Berlin" resonates in ambiguity where Cohen had been asked "Who is 'We'? 

Cohen responded, "Who do you want it to be?" 

That anecdote might be bullshit, i.e., it might be something someone made up and put on the web. But it sure is cute. In any event, here are a few links:

Rhetoric and Bullshit, - copyright 2011 by National Council of Teachers of English.

International Relations — The ‘Higher Bullshit’: A Reply to the Globalization Theory Debate -- Good will towards all readers going beyond the "Introduction."

DIGITAL NEWS PROJECT
--2017
Bias, Bullshit and Lies
Audience Perspectives on
Low Trust in the Media

Being honest with readers, those really exist on the web but I have not read even one of them. No bullshit. Go for it.