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

MrT · May 4, 2016

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 · May 4, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 4, 2016

MrT said:
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.

Redress · May 4, 2016

Plos One, that explains it all. It is a pay to be published web journal.

Chomsky · May 4, 2016

Redress said:
Plos One, that explains it all. It is a pay to be published web journal.

That's just total bull****! :lamo

clownboy · May 4, 2016

Is Kaczynski allowed to publish his journals now?

Velvet Elvis · May 8, 2016

Saying that's a "legitimate news source" is borderline psychotic.

Fiddytree · May 9, 2016

Redress said:
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 · May 9, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Velvet Elvis said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Fenton said:
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 · May 9, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 9, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 9, 2016

roughdraft274 said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Fenton said:
" 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 · May 9, 2016

Fenton said:
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 · May 9, 2016

roughdraft274 said:
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 said:
" 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 · May 9, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
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 · May 9, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Fenton said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Fenton said:
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 · May 9, 2016

Gimmesometruth said:
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 · May 9, 2016

MrT said:
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 · May 9, 2016

apdst said:
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?

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

MrT

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

ocean515

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Chomsky

Social Democrat

clownboy

Velvet Elvis

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Fenton

MrT

MrT

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Fenton

MrT

MrT

coldjoint

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Fenton

Fenton

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Fenton

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Fenton

apdst

MrT

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

Classical Liberal Sage

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Social Democrat

Neocon Elitist

ThunderCougarFalconBird

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency