Reaction Paper: Antecedents of Bullshitting
1. Something that surprised you, that you found interesting in the material. Why did
it surprise or interest you? If nothing surprised or interested you, what should the
authors have done to improve their paper in order to appeal to you?
2. Whether or not you were persuaded by the argument, theory, and evidence in the
readings and why - the flaws in the methods, the most/least compelling arguments
and interpretations (and why they were the most/least compelling arguments and
interpretations), obvious oversights, connections to other readings you’ve done in
the past, etc. For any flaws or issues with the readings you mention, provide
solutions for how the researcher could have done it better.
3. Present ideas for additional studies that might be run which expand on the
authors’ ideas.
Reaction Paper
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Reaction Paper
The most interesting thing about “Antecedents of Bullshitting” by John Petrocelli is the argument that bullshitting is an unavoidable and common social activity. As such, it means that some people engage in this behavior intentionally while others do it unintentionally. In particular, bullshitting is defined as communication without concern for the truth or evidence (Petrocelli, 2018). The reason why it is fascinating is because it entails how individuals communicate. As a result, bullshitting has everything to do with the underlying established knowledge or evidence.
Petrocelli persuaded me that bullshitting is not similar to lying. The author asserts that a liar knows that what he or she is saying is not true and that his or her goal of communicating is to detract others from the truth. On the contrary, a bullshitter communicates without knowing the evidence or established knowledge of what he or she is telling others (Petrocelli, 2018). Petrocelli uses compelling arguments, theories, and interpretations from scholars to support his points. He also uses hypotheses to prove his arguments. The article is flawl...