Published in

Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Judgment and Decision Making, 1(11), p. 123-125, 2016

DOI: 10.1017/s1930297500007658

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

It's still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)

Journal article published in 2016 by Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler ORCID, Jonathan A. Fugelsang
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Upload
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractIn reply to Dalton (2016), we argue that bullshit is defined in terms of how it is produced, not how it is interpreted. We agree that it can be interpreted as profound by some readers (and assumed as much in the original paper). Nonetheless, we present additional evidence against the possibility that more reflective thinkers are more inclined to interpret bullshit statements as profound.