Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-2016
Keywords
bullshit, intention, meaning
Abstract
In reply to Dalton (2016), the authors argue that bullshit is defined in terms of how it is produced, not how it is interpreted. They agree that it can be interpreted as profound by some readers (and assumed as much in the original paper). Nonetheless, they present additional evidence against the possibility that more reflective thinkers are more inclined to interpret bullshit statements as profound.
Faculty
Faculty of Humanities & Social Sciences
School
School of Humanities and Creativity
Journal
Judgment and Decision Making
Version
Publisher's version
Peer Reviewed/Refereed Publication
yes
Funder
Funding for this study was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Terms of Use
Terms of Use for Works posted in SOURCE.
Copyright
Copyright: © 2016. The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Original Publication Citation
Pennycook, G., Cheyne J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016) It's still bullshit: Reply to Dalton. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 123–125.
SOURCE Citation
Pennycook, Gordon; Cheyne, James Allen; Barr, Nathaniel; Koehler, Derek J.; and Fugelsang, Jonathan A., "It’s Still Bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016)" (2016). Faculty Publications and Scholarship. 2.
https://source.sheridancollege.ca/fhass_huma_publ/2
Included in
