From the press release: "Ratings of how profound, truthful, or accurate they found pseudo-profound and pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines." Does that mean the people being tested were just shown the headline? Usually, that's not enough information to decide if something is bullshit. So, were they basically asking their subjects to guess?
The actual paper [1] is paywalled. US$12.00. The press release does not link to the paper, nor does it give a full citation, but it does give enough info that the paper can be found.
A useful metric is that if something makes a strong but unusual claim, and the supporting data is hard to access, it's usually bullshit.
From the press release: "Ratings of how profound, truthful, or accurate they found pseudo-profound and pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines." Does that mean the people being tested were just shown the headline? Usually, that's not enough information to decide if something is bullshit. So, were they basically asking their subjects to guess?
The actual paper [1] is paywalled. US$12.00. The press release does not link to the paper, nor does it give a full citation, but it does give enough info that the paper can be found. A useful metric is that if something makes a strong but unusual claim, and the supporting data is hard to access, it's usually bullshit.
[1] https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/...