3 ms·
As an outsider, I found the technical term the profession chose (according to the study, I don't know that branch of study myself), to be profoundly distracting
by logicallee 11y ago
As an outsider, I found the technical term the profession chose (according to the study, I don't know that branch of study myself), to be profoundly distracting. The profession made a really bad choice by choosing to go with it.
It's literally vulgar slang. It's as though a report on being deemed sexual attractiveness called it "fuckability
".
The profession should have called it "nonsense" or come up with some other qualifier, not chosen vulgar slang.
- _delirium 11y agoIt's annoyed me periodically as well, in part because it's a bit of a stretch to call it a "technical term" (its precise definition is quite slippery between authors), and in part because to the extent there is well-defined content, it's mostly just PR trying to oversell more narrow results, which would be better called by some more accurate term. Imo the slang did work okay in its original formulation, where it was mostly just an attention-grabbing headline used by Harry Frankfurt as the title of his book On Bullshit. But that's a joke that works okay the first time, and gets old if you keep repeating it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- return0 11y agoApparently they took "High Bullshit Receptivity Scale statements" , and shortened it to "bullshit" , which is disingenuous. http://search.proquest.com/openview/147f47b65818b1c2cdfca9c029a444c2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=696407 http://search.proquest.com/openview/147f47b65818b1c2cdfca9c0...