• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Bull**** As Profound' Linked to Support for Conservatism

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, this is a real article and it was actually published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

You can go directly to the peer reviewed article here. And here is the abstract:

The present research investigates the associations between holding favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the US presidency 2016 and seeing profoundness in bull**** statements. In this contribution, bull**** is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science. We used the Bull**** Receptivity scale (BSR) to measure seeing profoundness in bull**** statements. The BSR scale contains statements that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be sound and meaningful on first reading but are actually vacuous. Participants (N = 196; obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk) rated the profoundness of bull**** statements (using the BSR) and provided favorability ratings of three Democratic (Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders) and three Republican candidates for US president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump). Participants also completed a measure of political liberalism/conservatism. Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bull**** statements as profound. The smallest correlation was found for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association between bull**** 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 bull**** statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a higher tendency to see profoundness in bull**** 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 bull**** statements.

For those curious to review some examples of the "Bull****" statements that were deemed "profound" by a significant amount of supporters of conservatism, with the strongest link found those individuals who supported Ted Cruz [and weakest link with support for Bernie Sanders], you can go here. And for those interested in learning how they defined "pseudo-profound bull****," you can go here.

I find this research to be particularly ironic given the stereotype of liberals as the pot smoking hippies that believe a whole bunch of a bull****.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,141
Reaction score
21,231
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, this is a real article and it was actually published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

You can go directly to the peer reviewed article here. And here is the abstract:



For those curious to review some examples of the "Bull****" statements that were deemed "profound" by a significant amount of supporters of conservatism, with the strongest link found those individuals who supported Ted Cruz [and weakest link with support for Bernie Sanders], you can go here. And for those interested in learning how they defined "pseudo-profound bull****," you can go here.

I find this research to be particularly ironic given the stereotype of liberals as the pot smoking hippies that believe a whole bunch of a bull****.

Well, having glanced at the article I can agree that it is total bull****.

So I guess the authors are experts. :coffeepap:
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, this is a real article and it was actually published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

You can go directly to the peer reviewed article here. And here is the abstract:



For those curious to review some examples of the "Bull****" statements that were deemed "profound" by a significant amount of supporters of conservatism, with the strongest link found those individuals who supported Ted Cruz [and weakest link with support for Bernie Sanders], you can go here. And for those interested in learning how they defined "pseudo-profound bull****," you can go here.

I find this research to be particularly ironic given the stereotype of liberals as the pot smoking hippies that believe a whole bunch of a bull****.

I think this member of PLOS ONE sums it up best.

Not Science.jpg
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,980
Reaction score
51,915
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Plos One, that explains it all. It is a pay to be published web journal.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is Kaczynski allowed to publish his journals now?
 

Velvet Elvis

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
4,954
Reaction score
2,195
Location
Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Saying that's a "legitimate news source" is borderline psychotic.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,952
Reaction score
17,341
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Plos One, that explains it all. It is a pay to be published web journal.

You mean real journal editors would ask the authors to find another word for bull****? Oh darn.:mrgreen:
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, this is a real article and it was actually published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

You can go directly to the peer reviewed article here. And here is the abstract:



For those curious to review some examples of the "Bull****" statements that were deemed "profound" by a significant amount of supporters of conservatism, with the strongest link found those individuals who supported Ted Cruz [and weakest link with support for Bernie Sanders], you can go here. And for those interested in learning how they defined "pseudo-profound bull****," you can go here.

I find this research to be particularly ironic given the stereotype of liberals as the pot smoking hippies that believe a whole bunch of a bull****.

Bait thread......

Why not just title the thread " Conservatives are stupid and suck " ??
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Saying that's a "legitimate news source" is borderline psychotic.

I said it was a legitimate peer reviewed article - and it is that - not that it was a legitimate news source. The fact remains that this is legitimate news.

The implications of the research I leave for others to discuss.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Bait thread......

Why not just title the thread " Conservatives are stupid and suck " ??

This is legitimate research on some underlying differences between liberals and conservatives. The fact that you are more likely to believe that a bull**** statement is "profound" is likely to color your ability to critically analyze other data and statements.

We see the reflection of that in the nomination of Donald Trump.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
9,733
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I said it was a legitimate peer reviewed article - and it is that - not that it was a legitimate news source. The fact remains that this is legitimate news.

The implications of the research I leave for others to discuss.

I think it's important to note that this journal is completely open access meaning that almost anyone can publish to it, if I understand correctly. Meaning that along with the good, there's gonna be some off the wall goofball ****.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is legitimate research on some underlying differences between liberals and conservatives. The fact that you are more likely to believe that a bull**** statement is "profound" is likely to color your ability to critically analyze other data and statements.

We see the reflection of that in the nomination of Donald Trump.



" Legitimate research " posted on a open access journal.

Lol !!
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think it's important to note that this journal is completely open access meaning that almost anyone can publish to it, if I understand correctly. Meaning that along with the good, there's gonna be some off the wall goofball ****.

Oh I tend to agree. Just getting a grant to study "the links between political ideology and whether you find bull**** to be profound" seems like it would be a difficult sell. And there is always the potential problem of being able to replicate the study, but the method used seems fairly sound according to individuals that study these types of topics.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
" Legitimate research " posted on a open access journal.

Lol !!

Please, you dispute research published in any type of peer reviewed journal unless it agrees with your previously held beliefs.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bait thread......

Why not just title the thread " Conservatives are stupid and suck " ??

Do you actually expect to have a liberal say what he or she really means? They need to spin "good morning."
 

Gimmesometruth

Gerald's Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
29,660
Reaction score
6,475
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think it's important to note that this journal is completely open access meaning that almost anyone can publish to it, if I understand correctly. Meaning that along with the good, there's gonna be some off the wall goofball ****.
" Legitimate research " posted on a open access journal.

Lol !!
ffs, you guys post such low level ignorance:

Open access (OA) refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g., access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).[1] Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses,[2] book chapters,[1] and monographs.[3]


it means yer free to view and share, not change or edit.

good grief.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ffs, you guys post such low level ignorance:

Open access (OA) refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g., access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).[1] Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses,[2] book chapters,[1] and monographs.[3]


it means yer free to view and share, not change or edit.

good grief.

Did the author have to PAY to have his " research " published ?
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Please, you dispute research published in any type of peer reviewed journal unless it agrees with your previously held beliefs.

You posted a bait thread, wouldn't be the first time either
 

Gimmesometruth

Gerald's Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
29,660
Reaction score
6,475
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Did the author have to PAY to have his " research " published ?
I don't know, that wasn't the point, yer point was that it was "open access", as if having it available for full viewing was a bad thing. Now yer changing the topic without accepting the error of yer understanding of what open access means.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know, that wasn't the point, yer point was that it was "open access", as if having it available for full viewing was a bad thing. Now yer changing the topic without accepting the error of yer understanding of what open access means.

He posted a hack bait thread poorly disguised as " objective research", and Im the one thats made the error ?
 

Gimmesometruth

Gerald's Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
29,660
Reaction score
6,475
Location
US Southwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
He posted a hack bait thread poorly disguised as " objective research", and Im the one thats made the error ?
Again, you keep distracting from your error, why didn't you just look up the meaning of open access? And now that you know, just admit you did not know what it meant. In another thread, you were just speaking to honest debate, yet here you are....not being honest WITH ME.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Again, you keep distracting from your error, why didn't you just look up the meaning of open access? And now that you know, just admit you did not know what it meant. In another thread, you were just speaking to honest debate, yet here you are....not being honest WITH ME.

 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yes, this is a real article and it was actually published in a legitimate peer reviewed journal.

You can go directly to the peer reviewed article here. And here is the abstract:



For those curious to review some examples of the "Bull****" statements that were deemed "profound" by a significant amount of supporters of conservatism, with the strongest link found those individuals who supported Ted Cruz [and weakest link with support for Bernie Sanders], you can go here. And for those interested in learning how they defined "pseudo-profound bull****," you can go here.

I find this research to be particularly ironic given the stereotype of liberals as the pot smoking hippies that believe a whole bunch of a bull****.

The Liberals have been wrong on everything and you want to claim that conservatism is bull****?
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Liberals have been wrong on everything and you want to claim that conservatism is bull****?

Is that really the understanding you took away from this study? Or are you just trying to troll?
 
Top Bottom