Editing Bullshit (section)

==As an object of psychological research==

Although attempts had been made in the past to examine bullshit and bullshitting from a scientific perspective,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mears |first1=Daniel P. |date=2002 |title= The Ubiquity, Functions, and Contexts of Bullshitting |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289724155
 |journal=Journal of Mundane Behavior |language=en |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=233–256 }}</ref> it did not gain attention among cognitive scientists as a legitimate area of research until 2015 when Dr.&nbsp;[[Gordon Pennycook]] (still a graduate student at that time) and his colleagues at [[University of Waterloo]] developed the "Bullshit Receptivity Scale" (BSR), a questionnaire designed to quantify receptivity to a particular kind of bullshit that they called "pseudo-profound bullshit".<ref name="The Psychology of Bullshit"/> The development of the BSR led to Pennycook and his colleagues winning the 2016 [[Ig Nobel Prize]] (for [[List of Ig Nobel Prize winners#2016|Peace]]).

Further research from Wake Forest University psychologists found evidence to support Frankfurt's notion that a person is more likely to engage in bullshitting when they feel a social pressure to provide an opinion and perceive that they will be given a social “pass” to get away with it.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Petrocelli |first1=John V. |date=2018 |title= Antecedents of bullshitting |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103117305127
 |journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology |language=en |volume=76 |pages=249–258 |doi=10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.004 }}</ref> Indeed, some have theorized that social media offers a prime environment for bullshitting as it combines the social pressure to offer one's opinions on a wide variety of topics along with an anonymity that arguably provides a social “pass”. According to researchers from Queen’s University in Belfast (2008): “along with a pervasive and balkanized social media ecosystem and high internet immersion, public life provides abundant opportunities to bullshit and lie on a scale we could have scarcely credited 30 years ago”.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=MacKenzie |first1=A |title=Lies, bullshit and fake news: some epistemological concerns |journal=Postdigital Science and Education |date=February 2020 |volume=2 |pages=9–13 |doi=10.1007/s42438-018-0025-4 |s2cid=158148106 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

More recently, researchers have identified a type of [[Dunning-Kruger Effect]] for bullshit receptivity called the "[[Bias blind spot|bullshit blind spot]]."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Littrell |first1=Shane |last2=Fugelsang |first2=Jonathan A. |date=2021 |title= Bullshit blind spots: the roles of miscalibration and information processing in bullshit detection |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546783.2023.2189163 |journal=Thinking and Reasoning |volume=30 |pages=49–78 |language=en |doi=10.1080/13546783.2023.2189163  |s2cid=257553913 }}</ref> The researchers found that those who were the worst at detecting bullshit were not only grossly overconfident in their BS detection abilities but also believed that they were better at detecting it than the average person (i.e., they have a bullshit blind spot). Conversely, those who were the best at detecting bullshit were not only underconfident in their abilities, they also believed they were somewhat worse at detecting it than the average person. The researchers referred to this underconfidence bias among the high performers as "bullshit [[blindsight]]."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kara-Yakoubian |first1=Mane |title=New study reveals the bullshit blind spot |url=https://www.psypost.org/2023/05/new-psychology-research-reveals-the-bullshit-blind-spot-163943 |newspaper=Psypost - Psychology News |date=31 May 2023 |access-date=May 31, 2023 }}</ref>

Given that much of the early scientific work on bullshit focused on those more likely to fall for it (i.e., the "bullshittees"), some researchers have turned their attention to examining those more likely to produce it (i.e., the "bullshitters"). For example, in 2021, a research team at the [[University of Waterloo]] developed the "Bullshitting Frequency Scale" (BSF) which measures two types of bullshitting: "persuasive" and "evasive".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Littrell |first1=Shane |last2=Risko |first2=Evan F. |last3=Fugelsang |first3=Jonathan A. |date=2021 |title= The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties. |url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12379
 |journal=British Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=248–270 |doi=10.1111/bjso.12379 |pmid=32304103 |s2cid=215809136 }}</ref> They defined "persuasive bullshitting" as a rhetorical strategy intended to impress, persuade, or otherwise fit in with others by bullshitting about one's knowledge, ideas, attitudes, skills, or competence. "Evasive bullshitting" refers to an evasive rhetorical strategy in which one provides "non-relevant truths" in response to inquiries when direct answers could result in reputational harm for oneself or others.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kara-Yakoubian |first1=Mane |title=New study suggests you can bullshit some bullshitters |url=https://www.psypost.org/2021/12/new-study-suggests-you-can-bullshit-some-bullshitters-62255 |newspaper=Psypost - Psychology News |date=16 December 2021 |access-date=December 16, 2021 }}</ref>

Building on these findings, the researchers also tested the familiar adage that “you can’t bullshit a bullshitter”. To do so, they explored associations between scores on the Bullshitting Frequency Scale (BSF) and performance on measures of receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit, pseudoscientific bullshit, and fake news. They found that higher scores of "persuasive bullshitting" positively predicted scores for all three types of "bullshit receptivity". In other words, those who are most likely to persuasively bullshit others are in turn more likely to believe persuasive bullshit, suggesting that you can indeed bullshit a bullshitter after all.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Littrell |first1=Shane |last2=Risko |first2=Evan F. |last3=Fugelsang |first3=Jonathan A. |date=2021 |title= You can't bullshit a bullshitter (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information.|url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12447 |journal=British Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=60 |issue=4 |pages=1484–1505 |doi=10.1111/bjso.12447 |pmid=33538011 |s2cid=231805408 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Pierre |first1=Joe |title=Can You Bullshit a Bullshitter? |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202104/can-you-bullshit-bullshitter |website=Psychology Today |publisher=Sussex Publishing |access-date=March 31, 2022}}</ref>