[driveway]

http://gawker.com/study-dumb-people-...eep-1746288972

An academic study on “pseudo-profound bull####” finds that the people most likely to believe pseudo-profound bull#### are suckers—who are also dumb.
...
The study hypothesizes that some people may have “a potential inability to detect bull####, which may cause one to confuse vagueness for profundity.”
...
“Those more receptive to bull#### are less reflective, lower in cognitive ability (i.e., verbal and fluid intelligence, numeracy), are more prone to ontological confusions and conspiratorial ideation, are more likely to hold religious and paranormal beliefs, and are more likely to endorse complementary and alternative medicine.”

Yes, the study actually uses the term "bull####"... I know that's going to get caught by the CP censor, but it really is in the study.

From the study itself:
http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf

Abstract
Although bull#### is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines bull#### as, simply,
“rubbish” and “nonsense”, which unfortunately does not get
to the core of bull####. Consider the following statement:
“Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty.”

Although this statement may seem to convey some sort of potentially profound meaning, it is merely a collection of buzzwords put together randomly in a sentence that retain syntactic structure.