Study: What Kind of Voter Is Most Susceptible When Pols Pile It High and Deep?

[Odin]

The results are predictable.  

Quote:Millions of voters this election cycle are shunning “the establishment” and the meaningless platitudes that practiced politicians chew up and spit out like bubblegum. Scientists behind a recent study have come up with a technical term for this political treacle: “bullshit.” And they’ve found that people’s ability to detect it correlates with their political views.

The authors of the PLoS ONE study said they found that people who identify as conservative are more likely than their liberal counterparts to find such meaningless statements profound. What’s more, vulnerability to bullshit is linked to support for specific candidates—with Ted Cruz devotees the most likely to dredge up meaning in phrasal cow patties. The study, conducted by two German psychologists with no clear dog in America’s presidential pit bull fight, has created a real you-know-what storm. “I knew there would be a little bit of a brouhaha” over the study’s formal terminology, says cognitive psychologist Mark Runco of the University of Georgia, who edited the paper. “It happens to be timely and use an unusual label—that is to say, ‘bullshit.’”

The study’s social scientists—Stefan Pfattheicher, a psychologist at the University of Ulm, and Simon Schindler of the psychology department at Kassel University—focused on a particular form of BS: “pseudo-profound bullshit.” On first blush these grammatically correct statements seem to possess deep meaning, but they contain little logic.

Consider, for example, “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty.” The scientists asked 196 test subjects to rank how profound they found a series of such empty axioms. Thrown in the mix were logical but mundane statements like “A wet person does not fear the rain.” Test subjects next ranked their own conservatism or liberalism, with a mean response of 3.33 on a 1 to 7 scale of liberal to conservative. Finally, they ranked how favorably test-takers viewed the three highest-polling candidates in each top party—Republicans Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump; Democrats Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. (Mean favorability views on a 1 to 5 unfavorable to favorable scale were as follows: Cruz, 2.13; Rubio, 2.42; Trump, 1.94; O’Malley, 2.54; Sanders, 3.53; and Clinton, 2.76.)

After Cruz supporters, Rubio enthusiasts were found most likely to draw inspiration from prosaic dung piles, followed by Trump acolytes. To test whether or not Republicans’ supporters were also more easily inspired by non-BS than Democrats’ supporters, the scientists looked at the subjects’ reactions to true but mundane statements. They found Clinton and O’Malley supporters were most likely to find meaning in the mundane. In other words, conservatives were not more easily inspired than liberals by statements in general—just by what the researchers deemed pseudo-profound BS.

The authors note that the study does not conclude that conservatives are more commonly hoodwinked by all brands of BS. For example, they may be no more vulnerable than liberals to outright lies. Past studies have found conservatives to be less reflective, potentially making them susceptible specifically to pseudo-profound hogwash. “It’s preliminary work, like any area of this research,” says cognitive psychologist and fellow bullshit aficionado Gordon Pennycook of the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Pennycook was not involved in the study, but the authors relied on a list of bullshit statements that Pennycook had created for his own papers using random Internet phrase generators. (To sample more pseudo-profound truths, like “Consciousness is the growth of coherence, and of us,” click here.) Pennycook thinks the new study is consistent with some preliminary research his team had completed earlier. “It seems like a pretty straightforward study,” he says.

But once the two German scientists published their findings in late April, stuff hit the fan. Internet users transformed online comment sections into a veritable merde storm, accusing the authors of bias and questioning their analysis of raw data. Meanwhile a Reddit group waxed philosophic about whether or not the pseudo-profound statements did in fact possess deep meaning. “The future explains irrational facts” enjoyed some online support.

One online commenter worried that the media would cover this story in a reductive, immature way. (To which this reporter takes great professional umbrage.)

Meanwhile the authors have gone into media hiding: “There are already some hot discussions about the article on the Internet. We do not want to add fuel to the fire” by commenting more on this story, Pfattheicher wrote in an e-mail.

But Runco defends the authors from accusations of bias. “It’s as unbiased as most psychological research,” he says. The researchers examined a testable question, and their statistical methods were sound. He also says several other traits have been found to vary with political opinion, so there’s precedent for this research.

The authors of the paper seem to smell potential for further studies in the field, writing that “research on bullshit is still in its infancy.” And no doubt, the presidential race will give social scientists a fresh pile of material to shovel through. As the authors put it, “Bullshit is prevalent in all our lives.”

[TnT]

For the most part, excepting this forum, I've given up arguing politics with folks in person. It often and quickly degenerates into slinging bumper-stickers at one another.

What I DO ask my conservative brethern is, "Where did you get your information on [whatever]?" And often, the reply is "The Internet."

Then I ask, "Where on the Internet?" And they often reply, "Oh, it's all over the place."

With my ultra-Liberal fanatic friends, unfortunately, the answer is pretty much the same. Only in their case, it's Left-wing echo chambers.

Pornography and bullshit are the killer products of the internet, our cesspool of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

[Odin]

(05-14-2016, 04:10 PM)TnT Wrote: For the most part, excepting this forum, I've given up arguing politics with folks in person.  It often and quickly degenerates into slinging bumper-stickers at one another.

What I DO ask my conservative brethern is, "Where did you get your information on [whatever]?"  And often, the reply is "The Internet."

Then I ask, "Where on the Internet?"  And they often reply, "Oh, it's all over the place."

With my ultra-Liberal fanatic friends, unfortunately, the answer is pretty much the same.  Only in their case, it's Left-wing echo chambers.

Pornography and bullshit are the killer products of the internet, our cesspool of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

FWIW, I get most of my stuff from online articles from respected sources like NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Salon, The Atlantic, The Jacobin, etc. When I ask RW Millennials their stuff is usually some hair-brained YouTube video.

[TnT]

(05-14-2016, 04:36 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 04:10 PM)TnT Wrote: For the most part, excepting this forum, I've given up arguing politics with folks in person.  It often and quickly degenerates into slinging bumper-stickers at one another.

What I DO ask my conservative brethern is, "Where did you get your information on [whatever]?"  And often, the reply is "The Internet."

Then I ask, "Where on the Internet?"  And they often reply, "Oh, it's all over the place."

With my ultra-Liberal fanatic friends, unfortunately, the answer is pretty much the same.  Only in their case, it's Left-wing echo chambers.

Pornography and bullshit are the killer products of the internet, our cesspool of misinformation, propaganda and lies.

FWIW, I get most of my stuff from online articles from respected sources like NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Salon, The Atlantic, The Jacobin, etc. When I ask RW Millennials their stuff is usually some hair-brained YouTube video.

I read some of the same things you read.  Still, each of us has to be very careful about sourcing. Even a publication like the Atlantic, one of my favorites, can feed MY confirmation bias.

For deep background info, I prefer books that seem to have been well-researched.

The biggest problem we all have with sourcing of current events, is that too often relevant stories are simply not told at all. Instead we are fed Kardashian Krap - it fills up the bandwidth and we become overwhelmed with the cacophany of bullshit.

Like the other day on Hardball they're talking about bathroom access??!!  Bathrooms!!  Who gives a flying "F" about who is or is not standing at the next urinal?  Much less invisible inside a nearby stall.  I'm more concerned about Mercy Flushes in public bathrooms.  Jesus.

[Odin]

(05-14-2016, 04:50 PM)TnT Wrote: Like the other day on Hardball they're talking about bathroom access??!!  Bathrooms!!  Who gives a flying "F" about who is or is not standing at the next urinal?  Much less invisible inside a nearby stall.  I'm more concerned about Mercy Flushes in public bathrooms.  Jesus.

It's just Republicans enraging the base in an election year by implying that trans-women are pedophile cross-dressers out to molest their daughters. Classic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" garbage.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 04:36 PM)Odin Wrote: FWIW, I get most of my stuff from online articles from respected sources like NPR, the BBC, Al-Jazeera, Salon, The Atlantic, The Jacobin, etc. When I ask RW Millennials their stuff is usually some hair-brained YouTube video.

Then you must be asking the wrong RW Millennials. The ones I encounter usually put Breitbart, Fox News and even CNN at the top of the list. Say what you will about Breitbart and Fox News but the left has their counterparts in Huff Post and MSNBC.

It should be noted that I've said elsewhere that all news sources are a propaganda mouthpiece for someone.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 05:03 PM)Odin Wrote: It's just Republicans enraging the base in an election year by implying that trans-women are pedophile cross-dressers out to molest their daughters. Classic "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" garbage.

Yes...the Left never uses "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" garbage ever.

[Odin]

(05-14-2016, 06:14 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Then you must be asking the wrong RW Millennials.  The ones I encounter usually put Breitbart, Fox News and even CNN at the top of the list.  Say what you will about Breitbart and Fox News but the left has their counterparts in Huff Post and MSNBC.

It should be noted that I've said elsewhere that all news sources are a propaganda mouthpiece for someone.

I consider Breitbart at the same level as those Youtube videos, especially since they jumped on the GamerGate bandwagon when Milo singled the GGers out as easily manipulated morons

(05-14-2016, 06:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes...the Left never uses "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" garbage ever.

I never insinuated they didn't. I'm old enough to remember Tipper Gore's BS, you know.

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 06:22 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-14-2016, 06:14 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Then you must be asking the wrong RW Millennials.  The ones I encounter usually put Breitbart, Fox News and even CNN at the top of the list.  Say what you will about Breitbart and Fox News but the left has their counterparts in Huff Post and MSNBC.

It should be noted that I've said elsewhere that all news sources are a propaganda mouthpiece for someone.

I consider Breitbart at the same level as those Youtube videos, especially since they jumped on the GamerGate bandwagon when Milo singled the GGers out as easily manipulated morons

I really don't care what you consider Breitbart to be.  In all honesty I've long considered them to be the RW version of Huff Post.  

As for Milo, it is hard being fabulous.  There are some things that he says that I take issue with, but not many.  Personally I think you dislike him so much because none of the standard SJW attacks can be applied to him considering he's a gay man who loves black dick.

Quote:

(05-14-2016, 06:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes...the Left never uses "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" garbage ever.

I never insinuated they didn't. I'm old enough to remember Tipper Gore's BS, you know.

Odin, both sides use that line, and USUALLY when a side does it, it means they have no argument.  In fact whenever someone brings out "think of the children" I usually turn off to what they have to say.  But as with all thing usual, there are exceptions. The bathroom thing is an exception. And I say that as someone who actually has a minor under my care.



As I've pointed out before one needs to read between the lines of everything everyone says, because it is all propaganda for someone.  Something that one needs to learn to do if one makes it a habit of thinking for oneself.

[Odin]

Naw, I hate Milo because he's a shitty human being who insinuated himself into the leadership of an online harassment mob out to destroy the lives of any progressive techie women for his own personal aggrandizement. He loves the adulation of the GamerGate morons, even though just a couple years earlier he was calling those same people losers.

(05-14-2016, 06:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The bathroom thing is an exception. And I say that as someone who actually has a minor under my care.

Oh for fuck's sake...

[Kinser79]

(05-14-2016, 10:00 PM)Odin Wrote: Naw, I hate Milo because he's a shitty human being who insinuated himself into the leadership of an online harassment mob out to destroy the lives of any progressive techie women for his own personal aggrandizement. He loves the adulation of the GamerGate morons, even though just a couple years earlier he was calling those same people losers.

In short you hate him because he's fabulous and you're not. Please Odin, don't try to pass your sour grapes off as anything else then what they are.

Quote:

(05-14-2016, 06:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: The bathroom thing is an exception. And I say that as someone who actually has a minor under my care.

Oh for fuck's sake...

Yes, how dare someone who has children which are his responsibility have an opinion on anything, childless regressive leftists know all. If you must know The Boy is the least of my concern here--he can mostly look out for himself these days, my niece and nephew are a different matter. Unlike teh boy they aren't almost fully grown being 5 and 3 respectively.

ETA:

With the boy I'm more concerned with the numbskulls on the road, he's driving now, than any pervert he may meet in a men's room.

[pbrower2a]

Odin, do you have a link to the study?

I am not surprised that Trump voters would be most vulnerable to bullhist.

I take pride in being able to reject word salad when someone offers it to me.

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 12:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Odin, do you have a link to the study?

Most likely not because he would have linked to at least the abstract. Instead he quoted a propaganda piece, probably from a high value news source like Salon (who loves pedophiles) or Vice (who want to promote being a stoner).

Quote:I take pride in being able to reject word salad when someone offers it to me.

Also many of your own posts consist of little but word salad. And you don't have the excuse of the platform not being amenable to long form posting.

[Odin]

(05-20-2016, 12:34 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Odin, do you have a link to the study?

I am not surprised that Trump voters would be most vulnerable to bullhist.

I take pride in being able to reject word salad when someone offers it to me.

Here.

[Kinser79]

A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

[pbrower2a]

Thank you Odin -- and a Bronx cheer to Kinser.

I can easily look at this sentence

“Imagination is inside exponential space time events"

and recognize its pretentious vacuity. "Space-time" is something that I expect to hear or see from Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Michio Kaku, and then only in specific contexts that have nothing to do with imagination except for explaining 'space time' in an enlightening or even entertaining manner. Of course I know what 'exponential' means, and it is strictly a mathematical word unless used as hyperbole. In contrast, "A wet person does not fear the rain." sounds like some old piece of peasant wisdom... but it at least has some coherence!  It makes more sense after further contemplation. Maybe those who have met their fears of encounters with the unpleasant have no further dread of what they know well?

Wise people try to keep their language simple. Of course, bona fide scientific communication by necessity uses large words, but only with due precision. Using a word like ecdysiast* to describe Sally Rand might have some excusable humor. The creator of that word (I believe that it was H. L. Mencken) at the least wanted people to look it up in the dictionary.

Word salad does not pass editorial review in legitimate journals. Perhaps one can recognize the difference between the well-educated and the ill-educated: the well-educated have read material from some peer-reviewed journal, whatever the subject (whether history or physics) and knows what quality looks like in academic writing. It can be dry, but it makes sense at a certain level. Word salad, in contrast, is not only difficult to read but also empty. Thus on a muddled piece of patent absurdity I would be tempted to take out the red pencil and write "JUNK!" upon it.

Peer-reviewed journals have their use, but they are not for everyone. Popular-grade writing, as that one associates with a magazine that can tell one how to make an attractive and useful cabinet, can be useful for making a cabinet. So is a periodical that reduces the material in scientific journals to a popular level of learning -- so that people can be as well-informed of important aspects of science, medicine, and technology as possible. But a cabinet is useful, and having some idea of what happens to something approaching a black hole has some value as entertainment or high-school level learning. (I can make a joke about a dog's mouth as a black hole, at least for food, and people get it, especially if they see the voracious carnivore devouring some meat). Pseudo-scientific drivel is worthless at any level.




*Sally Rand was a stripper.

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2016, 08:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

A sample size of 196 may be adequate for some studies and inadequate for others. 

One works with the material available. One establishes an experimental outline before one asks the questions so that there can be no ambiguity about the validity of recorded data. One does not ask open-ended questions; one has clear "yes" or "no" questions or questions that put responses into neat categories.

Nobody expects random samples to get precise results. One wants instead conclusive results.

How good a sample is depends upon the randomness of the sample and its representative character. A sample of that size to assess whether Pat Leahy (D-VT) has a good chance of being re-elected might be good enough. Vermont is fairly homogeneous, so it is easy to poll. Such a sample size in a not-so-homogeneous state (Texas) could easily be inadequate.

...So how does one test the validity of a statistical study? Do it again! Good science gets replicable results.  Results may not be precisely alike, but if they are close one gets similar results.

...Can you make sense of “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty.”? I can't. Abstract art can be beautiful (really, it can!)., and the beauty of some abstract art has little to do with "meaning", especially "hidden meaning".  Art needs no "meaning" to make it attractive. When I see the word transform I expect the transforming entity to somehow change the object transformed... and if I see that sentence I am compelled to ask the question, "So into what does the hidden meaning transform "abstract beauty?", or more crudely, "into what?"

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 09:04 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Thank you Odin -- and a Bronx cheer to Kinser.

You know PBR, Jesus may love you but I think you're a pompous douche bag. Thanks for the Bronx Cheer though, if you hate something I say it means I'm on the right track.

Quote:I can easily look at this sentence

“Imagination is inside exponential space time events"

I recognize it as being pretentiously vacuous because it sounds exactly like something our good friend Eric would say. In short it looks and smells like bullshit, therefore, it is reasonable to assume it is bullshit.

Quote:Wise people try to keep their language simple. Of course, bona fide scientific communication by necessity uses large words, but only with due precision. Using a word like ecdysiast* to describe Sally Rand might have some excusable humor.

Actually it wouldn't. Generally speaking using a 50 cent word to describe a 5 cent idea is not funny. Never mind the fact that most people would hear the word 'ecdysiast' and wonder "wtf does that mean?".

Quote: The creator of that word (I believe that it was H. L. Mencken) at the least wanted people to look it up in the dictionary.

Then he succeeded. I still don't see the humor though.

Quote:Word salad does not pass editorial review in legitimate journals. Perhaps one can recognize the difference between the well-educated and the ill-educated: the well-educated have read material from some peer-reviewed journal, whatever the subject (whether history or physics) and knows what quality looks like in academic writing. It can be dry, but it makes sense at a certain level. Word salad, in contrast, is not only difficult to read but also empty. Thus on a muddled piece of patent absurdity I would be tempted to take out the red pencil and write "JUNK!" upon it.

The vast majority of people don't read peer reviewed anything. As for word salad it makes me wonder if you actually read your posts before you post them. Half the time when you stray off your half-dozen memorized talking points your writing looks like a conversation about world history with a two year old.

Quote:Peer-reviewed journals have their use, but they are not for everyone. Popular-grade writing, as that one associates with a magazine that can tell one how to make an attractive and useful cabinet, can be useful for making a cabinet. So is a periodical that reduces the material in scientific journals to a popular level of learning -- so that people can be as well-informed of important aspects of science, medicine, and technology as possible. But a cabinet is useful, and having some idea of what happens to something approaching a black hole has some value as entertainment or high-school level learning. (I can make a joke about a dog's mouth as a black hole, at least for food, and people get it, especially if they see the voracious carnivore devouring some meat). Pseudo-scientific drivel is worthless at any level.

I agree and that is why I dismiss everything Eric says out of hand. The first four sentences of this paragraph though is nothing but a word salad, and not a very appetizing one either.

Quote:*Sally Rand was a stripper.

Not quite. Burlesque dancing is much more tasteful than stripping.

(05-20-2016, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 08:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

A sample size of 196 may be adequate for some studies and inadequate for others. 

One works with the material available. One establishes an experimental outline before one asks the questions so that there can be no ambiguity about the validity of recorded data. One does not ask open-ended questions; one has clear "yes" or "no" questions or questions that put responses into neat categories.

Nobody expects random samples to get precise results. One wants instead conclusive results.

How good a sample is depends upon the randomness of the sample and its representative character. A sample of that size to assess whether Pat Leahy (D-VT) has a good chance of being re-elected might be good enough. Vermont is fairly homogeneous, so it is easy to poll. Such a sample size in a not-so-homogeneous state (Texas) could easily be inadequate.

...So how does one test the validity of a statistical study? Do it again! Good science gets replicable results.  Results may not be precisely alike, but if they are close one gets similar results.

...Can you make sense of “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty.”? I can't. Abstract art can be beautiful (really, it can!)., and the beauty of some abstract art has little to do with "meaning", especially "hidden meaning".  Art needs no "meaning" to make it attractive. When I see the word transform I expect the transforming entity to somehow change the object transformed... and if I see that sentence I am compelled to ask the question, "So into what does the hidden meaning transform "abstract beauty?", or more crudely, "into what?"

The sample size was inadequate to make judgements on a nation wide level, much less one on just party lines. Furthermore this study will need to be repeated to ascertain its validity--which is dubious at best. Like I said a couple dozen incredibly stupid people could throw their figures way off.

And yes I know how the scientific method works thanks.

[Odin]

(05-20-2016, 08:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

Are you implying it won't? Often a smaller study is done to see if a full study is worth doing.

[Kinser79]

(05-20-2016, 04:23 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-20-2016, 08:53 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: A sample size of 196 is not indicative of anything.  The size of the sample is far too small.  They may have only found a couple dozen extremely stupid people.  This needs to be replicated with a much larger sample size.

Are you implying it won't? Often a smaller study is done to see if a full study is worth doing.

Not at all. There seems to be no limit to what universities will waste money on these days. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean a thing unless they have a relatively diverse sample size that is at least 10 times larger. One has to account for drawing a couple dozen incredibly stupid people in survey style 'experiments' of this nature. Surely you can see that having just 10 such persons can swing the findings in a wrong direction far more than a standard deviation.