- 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:
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****.
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****.