On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit
| Author | Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang |
|---|---|
| Published | November 2015 |
| Format | Research paper |
| Original | Read the original |
TL;DR — Four studies showing that people who rate randomly generated buzzword sentences as profound also tend toward intuitive thinking and supernatural belief.
Published in Judgment and Decision Making (vol. 10, no. 6, November 2015), the paper takes Harry Frankfurt’s philosophical notion of bullshit into the lab. Participants rated the profundity of sentences built from randomly arranged buzzwords (one example: “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”), alongside real quotations and mundane statements.
Across four studies, a higher “bullshit receptivity” score went with a more intuitive cognitive style, lower verbal and numeracy scores, and greater belief in the paranormal and in alternative medicine. The authors argue that detecting such statements is a matter of discerning vagueness, not of being sceptical of everything. The paper won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2016.
What it is: a peer-reviewed psychology paper, widely cited. Openly published by the journal.
Where this came from
- A copy saved in October 2026.
- Open copy published by the journal at journal.sjdm.org.
15 pages. A copy is archived locally against link rot; the header links the original source.