Categories
Pinboard

Reading: PsyArXiv Preprints | Bullshit Makes the Art Grow Profounder

From PsyArXiv Preprints | Bullshit Makes the Art Grow Profounder

Abstract

Across four studies participants (N = 818) rated the profoundness of abstract art images accompanied with varying categories of titles, including: pseudo-profound bullshit titles (e.g., The Deaf Echo), mundane titles (e.g., Canvas 8), and no titles. Randomly generated pseudo-profound bullshit titles increased the perceived profoundness of computer generated abstract art, compared to when no titles were present (Study 1). Mundane titles did not enhance the perception of profoundness, indicating that pseudo-profound bullshit titles specifically (as opposed to titles in general) enhance the perceived profoundness of abstract art (Study 2). Furthermore, we find that these effects generalize to artist-created abstract art (Study 3). Finally, we report a large correlation between profoundness ratings for pseudo-profound bullshit and “International Art English” statements (Study 4), a mode and style of communication commonly employed by artists to discuss their work. This correlation suggests that these two independently developed communicative modes share underlying cognitive mechanisms in their interpretations. We discuss the potential for these results to be integrated into a larger, new theoretical framework of bullshit as a low-cost strategy for gaining advantages in prestige awarding domains.

Categories
Pinboard

Reading: So

Source

Making semiotic sense of an annoying stylistic tic: So says more than you might want it to.

This is apparently is an example of semantic bleaching, similar to the process that turned very and really (and more recently literally) into intensifiers. The OED lists so as an “adv. and conj.” glossed as “In the way or manner described, indicated, or suggested; in that style or fashion”, with examples going back to the 9th century. Over the centuries, if the bleaching theory is correct, a sense emerged that’s something more like “in relation to the issue described, suggested, or presupposed”.

“So” also seems to indicate a connection between the interviewer and interviewed, a suggestion that the answer really is going to address the question. But often, the interviewed answers a different question, snd the particle becomes a rhetorical backhander. Compare it to using “Well …” in the same context. “So” indicates that the response is canned, being delivered by rote – which also appears in the general tone of voice and cadence. “Well” can suggest the response is more thoughtful and tailored for the context.

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 18 Aug 2017 – 24 Aug 2017

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 1 Apr 2017 through 9 Apr 2017

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 25 Mar 2016 through 26 Mar 2016

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 5 Mar 2016 through 7 Mar 2016

  • Should Academics Talk to Katie Couric? – The Chronicle – Once more into the breech of consumption. Don't make me think! "Academic writing has the benefit of scholarly rigor, full documentation, and original thinking. But the transmission of our ideas is routinely hampered — understandably, given academe’s publication, evaluation, and tenure conditions — by a great deal of peer-oriented jargon." – (rhetoric academicwriting scholarship2.0 )
  • Coming Down From the Clouds: On Academic Writing – The Chronicle – A defense rather than an apologia for scholarly writing. We're not writing for The General Public. We're writing on the edge of knowledge – and that requires some effort. "Yes, some academic writing is more abstruse than it needs to be. No doubt, scholarship should not be hidden behind expensive paywalls. And, yes, academics, like all people, are shaped by the conditions of their employment. … But the story is more complicated." "there is a risk when we mistakenly assume that public and scholarly writing are the same thing — that one is good and clear and the other is needlessly complex." – (scholarship2.0 composition academia2.0 academicwriting )
  • Fear of Screens – The New Inquiry – Jurgenson, review of Reclaiming Conversation, Turkle. "Why would anyone want to believe that people who are communicating with phones have forgotten what friendship is?" My notes on http://mcmorgan.wikity.cc/digital-dualism/ – (mediation identity semiotics )
Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 27 Jan 2016 through 30 Jan 2016

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 7 Jan 2016

Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

What I’m reading 21 Jun 2015 through 24 Jun 2015

  • 68% of Statistics Are Meaningless, D2L Edition – Told u so. the LMS has nothing to offer in analytics. Wake up, partner. "I can’t remember the last time I read one of D2L’s announcements without rolling my eyes." – (d2l edcrap )
  • Challenging MOOCs – "Rather, I worry that MOOCs will increasingly deliver all studies in a similarly “lite” version, that MOOCs will be unlikely to provide much critical analysis or equip students to develop any, particularly on topics where there are passionate feelings or entrenched opinions." – (moocs )
  • Richard Bartle on MUDs and British Snobbery – YouTube – Matt Chat 296 – How ideology – and not necessarily the dominant one – gets laced into design. Dr. Matt Barton, SCSU, interviews Dr. Richard Bartle, co-creator of MUD. The MUD as a place that cancels out accent: On the internet, no one knows you're a northerner, so you're free to become a wizard. – (DH design opensource semiotics )
Categories
Pinboard Bookmarks

Morgan’s pinboard for 9 Jan 2015 through 16 Jan 2015