Bullshit receptivity - Sweden edition

The Complex Relation Between Receptivity to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit and Political Ideology

We are frequently exposed to fake news, conspiracy theories, ideologically biased narratives and “alternative facts” and pseudo-profound bullshit.

In sum, the studies conducted so far do indicate that there is an ideological asymmetry in terms of bullshit susceptibility that covers both general and economic ideology. But they suffer from several limitations. We turn to these limitations next and explain how we addressed them in the current study.

The paper concentrates its research on Sweden.

In general, the results corroborate the notion that the degree to which people are receptive to bullshit is a meaningful and robust aspect of their cognitive style. Bullshit receptivity was, consistent with past research, negatively associated with numeracy and cognitive reflection, and positively associated with confirmation bias for both neutral and political information. The results did, furthermore, generally hold up when we controlled for the perceived profundity of genuine aphorisms. This shows that bullshit receptivity is not just the tendency to perceive any kind of statement as meaningful. Rather, bullshit receptivity appears to be associated with a failure to detect bullshit and distinguish it from genuine profundity (i.e., a lack of bullshit sensitivity) for the most part, although some bullshit sensitive persons (e.g., those with strong individualizing moral intuitions) appear to combine high profoundness receptivity with average levels of bullshit receptivity.

You probably have a hunch where this will lead to and you might be on the right track. To cut it short here is the

Summary of the Findings

In sum, the current study revealed a complex picture of the relationship between bullshit receptivity and political ideology. Bullshit receptivity was clearly associated with social conservatism, and particularly with moral intuitions pertaining to ingroup loyalty, respect for authority, and purity, but it was associated with centrism or even leftism (when controlling for other aspects of ideology) in the economic domain, and it was highest of all among voters who supported a small green party on the left.

This pattern of results cannot be fully explained by any of the aforementioned accounts of the congruence of ideology and cognition. The existence of both left- and right-wing bullshit receptivity does not necessarily imply that the relation between bullshit receptivity and ideology is symmetrical, nor is this what the present results suggest. On the contrary, bullshit receptivity might emerge only in specific kinds of left and right ideological thought. It may, furthermore, be driven by somewhat different processes in different ideologies—on the left, it may stem from an uncritical openness to ideas that sound ideologically appealing or familiar; on the right, it may stem from a disinclination to critically engage with information and its sources (rather than a need for certainty and security per se).

Highly recommended paper, makes for good entertainment as well. Related reading of course 'On Bullshit' by Harry Frankfurt.