Search Results

Introversion in the Workplace SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2023 | COMMENT I brought receipts this time, but let’s get something straight first: the desire to feel seen , visible, and/or heard (figuratively, symbolically, and literally) is clearly at odds with the very definition of introversion. Introverts are individuals who generally recharge their energy by spending time alone, exhibiting a tendency to contemplate before taking action, learning through observation, possessing adept listening skills, and engaging in thoughtful decision-making. Introverted individuals are inclined towards listening rather than speaking, have a proclivity for innovation and creativity but tend to be averse to self-promotion, and typically prioritize solitary work over team collaboration. For introverts, things like managing meetings can be some of the most exhausting of experiences. In contrast, extroverts are people who typically derive their energy from social interactions, often making swift decisions, excelling in communication, favoring speaking over listening, and relishing the spotlight. Because introverts tend to be more reserved, primarily due to their inclination to listen and reflect rather than speak, they may experience lower visibility in the workplace, potentially resulting in missed opportunities for recognition and advancement. Introverts frequently favor textual or digital means of communication, driven by their desire to maintain concentration on their work and daily tasks. Introverts excel when they have the freedom to work at their own rhythm and respond at their convenience. On the other hand, extroverts are better suited to settings that employ more interactive modes of communication. Introverts prefer to stand in the spotlight without having to pretend to be extroverts. Yet, because we live in a society that appears to have a strong preference for extroverted traits—which are often linked to qualities such as “sociability,” “talkativeness,” “laid-back nature,” and being a “social butterfly,”—many introverted leaders learn how to exhibit extroverted qualities in order to be successful, but that doesn’t mean introverts want to be extroverts. One of the only reasons introverts may seek greater visibility in the workplace is because they often see their extroverted counterparts being rewarded for it (i.e., visibility)—BUT this doesn’t mean introverts desire the visibility that extroverts do (Blevins et al., 2022; Herbert et al., 2023). And of course, as with a great deal of experimental social psychology that finds seemingly countless person-by-situation interactions, the desire for visibility in the workplace is greatly influenced by context. For instance, Stern et al. (1983) reported that extroverts were less satisfied than introverts with their clerical jobs in terms of the work itself, supervision, and co-workers. Relatedly, Huang et al. (2016) extroverts are more likely to hold and be satisfied in jobs rich in social interaction (also see Harari et al., 2018). Furthermore, it appears that only extroverts tend to experience a “hangover effect” in the workplace—research conducted by Son and Ok (2019) indicates that the job satisfaction of newcomers follows a U-shaped pattern, decreasing initially upon joining an organization but later rebounding. This temporal evolution of job satisfaction is also found to be influenced by the extraversion of the newcomers. The findings revealed that, on average, newcomers’ job satisfaction decreases upon entry into an organization but progressively improves over time. Notably, extroverted newcomers tend to experience a more pronounced dip in job satisfaction upon joining the organization, a phenomenon often referred to as the “hangover effect.” Also, only those who believe personality matters to being valued feel that introverts sometimes need to act more extroverted in order to succeed. But again, this does not mean that introverts desire to be seen/visible, but that they can recognize the potential rewards of being visible in the workplace. Thus, to suggest that the most fundamental thing that a leader can do is help everyone they lead feel seen is a little shortsighted of the important role of introversion (given the fact that at least one-third of the population is introverted) and ignorant of the empirical research that sheds light on the issue. My perspective here is greatly influenced by Blevins et al.’s (2022) and Herbert et al.’s (2023) fantastic, systematic literature reviews of all the latest empirical research on introversion in the workplace. Other great reads on these very same takes would of course be Susan Cain’s bestseller Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking and Marti Laney’s book The Introvert Advantage: How to Thrive in an Extrovert World . References: Blevins, D. P., Stackhouse, M. R. D., & Dionne, S. D. (2022). Righting the balance: Understanding introverts (and extraverts) in the workplace. International Journal of Management Reviews , 24 , 78-98. Harari, M. B., Thompson, A. H., & Viswesvaran, C. (2018). Extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of trait bandwidth and the moderating effect of status goal attainment. Personality and Individual Differences , 123 , 14-16. Herbert, J., Ferri, L., Hernandez, B., Zamarripa, I., Hofer, K., Fazeli, M. S., Shnitsar, I., & Abdallah, K. (2023). Personality diversity in the workplace: A systematic literature review on introversion. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health , 38 , 165-187. Huang, J. L., Bramble, R. J., Liu, M., Aqwa, J. J., Ott, H. C. J., Ryan, A. M., Lounsbury, J. W., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. L. (2016). Rethinking the association between extraversion and job satisfaction: The role of interpersonal job context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 89 , 683-691. Luong, V., Shields, C., Petrie, A., & Neumann, K. (2022). Does personality matter? Perceptions and experiences of introverts and extraverts as general surgeons. Teaching and Learning in Medicine , 34 , 255-265. Son, J., & Ok, C. (2019). Hangover follows extroverts: Extraversion as a moderator in the curvilinear relationship between newcomers’ organizational tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 110 , 72-88. Sterns, L., Alexander, R. A., Barrett, G. V., & Dambrot, F. H. (1983). The relationship of extraversion and neuroticism with job preferences and job satisfaction for clerical employees. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 56 , 145-153. You can take a look at all of these sources here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1z3-do-hWNJXO7mH0llEqKe4UrWkQ9b32?usp=sharing #introversion #introverts #introversionintheworkplace #leadership #nobullshitleadership Watch Leave a reply/comment: Name Email (will not be published) Website Subject Your message Send Thanks for submitting! Connect with John

Persuasive Bullsh*tters FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 | COMMENT Short of lying, bullshitting involves communicating something with little to no regard for the truth, established knowledge, or genuine evidence. Although most people believe bullshit is relatively harmless, part of what makes bullshit compelling and appealing is that it often sounds beneficial, confirming, and credible. Four experiments in persuasion suggest that bullshit can have more influence than both lies and, in some cases, evidence-based frames of the very same information. Claptrap, baloney, buffoonery, codswallop, empty-talk, garbage, hogwash, nonsense, poppycock, flapdoodle, flim-flam, flummery—and often better referenced as bullshit—our world appears to be full of it. Yet, what exactly is bullshit? Bullshit is what emerges when people communicate with little to no regard for truth, established knowledge or genuine evidence (Frankfurt, 1986; Petrocelli, 2018, 2021a). Bullshitting behavior involves a broad array of rhetorical strategies that help us sound like we know what we’re talking about in order to impress others, persuade others, influence others, or explain things in an area in which our obligations to provide our opinions exceed our knowledge in that area (Cheyne & Pennycook, 2016; Littrell et al., 2020; Petrocelli, 2018, 2021a). Bullshit is often abstract, lacking in sources and logic, or riddled with acronyms and business-speak jargon. Part of what makes bullshit compelling and appealing is that it often sounds beneficial, confirming and credible—and may thereby be persuasive. Much of the empirical research on bullshitting has dealt with the when question—that is, understanding when people are likely to bullshit us. Here, I offer a closer focus on the evidence that addresses part of the why question, that is, understanding the potential functions of bullshit. If bullshit is an undesirable communicative substance, why do people engage in the behavior so very often? Better understandings of when and why people bullshit us should place us in a much better position to detect and dispose of this unwanted social substance. Bullshitting Isn’t Lying Bullshit is not the same as lying (Frankfurt, 1986). Although the liar and bullshitter are both deceptive in that they both appear concerned with the truth, only the liar is actually concerned with truth, and the bullshitter is not. When someone lies to us, their objective is to get us to believe something they don’t believe is true. If your colleague were to say something—and he knows perfectly well it just isn’t so—then he is lying. Whereas the liar doesn’t believe what she says is true, the bullshitter has no idea as to whether or not it’s true, and frankly, doesn’t care. In fact, sometimes—just by chance or accident—the bullshitter says something that is true, but even she wouldn’t know it, because she’s not concerned about the truth, established knowledge, or evidence that may otherwise support her claims. An important difference between lying and bullshitting involves the social reactions to these two forms of communication. When people lie to us, we’re very unhappy with them and they often pay great consequences for their lies. People tend to react to the lies with strong disdain and contempt, and there may be severe consequences for being caught in a lie (e.g., “She’s a damn liar. That woman should be fired!”). In the case of bullshitting, the social consequences are much less severe (Petrocelli, Silverman, & Shang, 2023). The bullshitter may communicate the very same message as the liar. Yet, because she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about, nor does she really care what the evidence suggests, we typically pass-off her bullshit as a mild social offense (e.g., “Oh, he’s just bullshitting again.”). We assume his bullshit is harmless—but, this is where we can’t be more wrong. Insidious Bullshit Hypothesis Although bullshitting is often evaluated less negatively than lying (Petrocelli, Silverman, & Shang, 2023), Frankfurt (1986) proposed that bullshit is more damaging to society than the lie. Not only by definition is there likely to be more bullshit than lies in the world, Frankfurt believed that pursuit of truth is of paramount importance—and although the liar’s concern for truth is a corrupt one, it is less bad than the bullshitter’s total disregard for truth. Through my research in my Bullshit Studies Lab (at Wake Forest University), we’ve considered some additional possibilities that test this hypothesis. First, there are reasons to believe that bullshit may be more influential and persuasive than both evidence-based communications and lies. Second, there are also reasons to suspect that bullshit may interfere with memory more than lies, and thereby, have a greater impact on what people believe to be true. Persuasiveness of Bullshit In our first experiment, we were interested in determining whether or not bullshit has a noteworthy influence on attitudes and beliefs when examined in light of a traditional persuasion procedure (Petrocelli, 2021b). Over 500 college students were led to believe there was a new policy being proposed, by university administrators, which would require seniors to pass a comprehensive exam in their major area in order to graduate. Students were led to believe we were interested in surveying their thoughts and opinions about the proposed policy. Half of the students read persuasive arguments in favor of the exam policy that were either strong (e.g., Students who graduate from schools with comprehensive exams earn more in their starting salaries.) or weak (e.g., Duke University is doing it.). Half of the students were also assigned to either a bullshit frames condition that prefaced the arguments with comments suggesting little to no interest in available and genuine evidence (e.g., “I believe there is some research on this issue, but I’m not really concerned with the evidence.”) or an evidence-based frames condition that prefaced the arguments with comments suggesting considerable interest in the relevant evidence (e.g., I’m really concerned with the evidence concerning this issue.”). Our analysis showed clear evidence of the traditional Argument Quality effect, but only within the evidence-based frame condition—it suggests a cuing of central route processing (whereby persuasion can occur only when the arguments themselves are compelling). However, the lack of a traditional Argument Quality effect within the bullshit frame condition suggests that bullshitting may cue what is usually referred to as peripheral route processing (whereby persuasion can occur when peripheral cues like the number of arguments or attributes of the communicator appear compelling; see Figure 1). Figure 1 Attitude and Thought Favorability means by Argument Quality and Argument Frame (Experiment 1); error bars represent +/-1 standard error. From another angle, relative to evidenced-based frames, bullshit frames appeared to weaken the potency of strong arguments, yet strengthen the potency of weak arguments. Such findings are quite remarkable given the arguments themselves are the very same—they only differ in what they signal about the intentions of the communicator as they pertain to their concern for truth and evidence. Theoretically, there are two general routes to persuasion of which the route depends on the ability, opportunity, and mental resources one has at the times, as well as their general motivation to think about the content of the message. When people follow the central route to persuasion, because they have the ability, opportunity and motivation to think about a persuasive communication, they tend to listen carefully and think about the quality of the arguments presented. When people follow the peripheral route to persuasion, because they are either not motivated, or lack the capacity, to think about the arguments in a persuasive communication, they may be swayed by more superficial cues (e.g., source credibility, source attractiveness, nonverbal cues, number of arguments in the message—not their quality). We conducted another experiment, this time the attitude object was student feelings about an extended 2-week Spring Break—an idea most students like (Petrocelli, 2021b). We tried to persuade them this wasn’t a very good idea (lower attitude scores in this experiment indicated more persuasion) with persuasive arguments allegedly provided by attractive or unattractive sources (using pictures from the Chicago Face Database). Because evidence-based frames appear to prompt central route processing in our first experiment, we expected Argument Quality to matter only when participants were presented with evidence-based frames of the arguments. But, because Source Attractiveness typically operates as a peripheral route cue, we expected Source Attractiveness to matter only when participants were presented with bullshit frames of the arguments. As expected, Argument Quality made a difference but only when arguments were provided in the evidence-based frames; it didn’t matter when the arguments were provided in bullshit frames. What did matter in bullshit frames was the peripheral cue of attractiveness; attractive sources were more influential than unattractive sources when arguments were provided in bullshit frames, but the difference in attractiveness didn’t appear to matter when arguments were provided in evidence-based frames.   Figure 2 Thought Favorability means by Argument Frame and Argument Quality, and by Argument Frame and Source Attractiveness; error bars represent +/-1 standard error. Lower scores indicate more persuasion that a longer spring break is a bad idea (Petrocelli, 2021b). Bullshit Sleeper Effect We explored two additional ways in which bullshit might affect attitudes and beliefs about what is true. In our third experiment, we borrowed from a traditional sleeper effect procedure. A sleeper effect is a persuasive influence that increases, rather than decays, over time; Albarracín, et al., 2017; Cook & Flay, 1978; Priester et al., 1999). The easiest way to demonstrate a sleeper effect is by providing people positive information about a novel attitude object (e.g., political candidate) and showing that they express relatively positive attitudes (at least initially). Later, people are provided with contrary, negative information about the source of earlier information. In response, social perceivers tend to discount the initial information and adjust their attitudes downward (i.e., less positive). However, with nothing more than the passage of time, there tends to be an increase in persuasion, such that attitudes return to a more positive valence. The sleeper effect is usually explained as a differential decay in memory—people forget the discounting cue sooner than they forget the initial persuasive message, such that the initial message retains a more persistent hold on attitudes (Pratkanis et al., 1988). In our experiment, we presented over 200 participants with an advertisement promoting multiple, desirable aspects of a fictious pizza (Petrocelli, Seta, & Seta, 2023). Attitudes about the pizza were measured, and sure enough, they were overwhelmingly positive. Later on, participants were randomly assigned to one of three discounting cue conditions—one third were informed that a consumer protection agency revealed that some of the information in the advertisement contained lies, one third were informed that the advertisement contained bullshit, and one third received no discounting cue at all. Attitudes about the pizza were measured once again, and as expected, the attitudes of participants who received lies or bullshit were significantly reduced (see Figure 3). When our participants returned to our lab 10-14 days later, they were reminded of the attitude object that we asked them to read about. Then, we measured their attitude towards Ciao’s Pizza one last time. Figure 3 Attitude means for Attitude Assessment by Discounting Cue Condition (Petrocelli, Seta, & Seta, 2023). After the delay in time, attitudes in both the lie and bullshit conditions increased. However, what we found most interesting was consistent with what we’d expect from the insidious bullshit hypothesis. Not only did the bullshit discounting cue result in more positive attitudes over time compared to the lie discounting cue, but it returned attitudes to a level of positivity that we would expect if our participants had never been given a discounting cue at all—and, in a way that the lie discounting cue did not. Because bullshitting appears to produce a stronger sleeper effect for unwarranted attitudes than does lying, and attitudes are relevant to thinking and behaving, it serves as further support for the insidious bullshit hypothesis. Bullshit Illusory Truth Effect Our final experiment borrowed from a procedure used to demonstrate an illusory truth effect—the phenomenon that repeated statements are easier to process and remember (i.e., processing fluency) compared to new statements, regardless of whether repeated statements were truthful (Hasher et al., 1977). When something becomes perceptually fluent it is more easily mentally processed. If we’ve seen something before, it’s easier to recognize, it’s easier to mentally process, and we often take the relative ease to signal truth. It is relatively easy to produce an illusory truth effect (sometimes referred to as a repetition-induced memory) by first exposing people with everyday stimuli (e.g., names, statements) repeatedly. If an individual reads or hears the statement “Our sun is a red giant star.” many times over, they are more likely to believe that statement then the truthful statement “Our sun is a yellow dwarf star.”. The initial exposure sets contrast with new information not previously processed. In other words, previously processed information is relatively more perceptually fluent than new information. This “difference” in perceptual fluency is confused for truth. The illusory truth effect can be pushed even further, as empirical research has shown that even if individuals should know better, they still fell victim to the phenomenon (Fazio et al., 2015). In our final experiment, we used stimuli such as “Steinbeck is the last name of the author of The Agony and the Ecstasy.” (false; it’s Stone). We first just asked over 300 participants to rate how interesting they found each statement for the purpose of exposing them to some information that would be repeated again later. Later we asked participants how true they believed similar statements to be. Some of the statements were repeated, some were new, and some of the statements were false, and some were true. Our participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in which they learned 1) the author of the statements was instructed to construct statements whereby they knew half to be true and half to be false (liar), 2) the author was instructed to include statements whereby they knew half to be true and half without any real concern for truth, genuine evidence, or existing knowledge (they didn’t know, nor care, if they were true; bullshitter), or 3) the author was simply instructed to compile a list of statements but that half of the statements are true and half are false (control). When our participants were informed about some of the information being false after the initial exposure, we observed a drop in truth ratings for the control and liar conditions that was not observed for the bullshitter condition (see Figure 4). Once again, these results are consistent with the insidious bullshit hypothesis—not only were all of the items false, but bullshit exposure did not afford the same corrective attempt observed by the liar and control conditions. The very same pattern was observed for the items that happened to actually be true. There was an overall increase in truth rating for true information—and that was good—but the differences between those exposed to bullshit, versus honesty and lies, remained.   Figure 4 Mean truth ratings for by Author Condition (Petrocelli, Rice, & Shang, 2020). D espite the unfortunate actions and consequences of seemingly so many victims of bullshit (e.g., Edgar Welch, Washington, D.C., Comet Ping Pong pizzeria gunman), people often think that bullshit is harmless. Yet, data from our Bullshit Studies Lab demonstrates through four controlled experiments that bullshit can be more influential than lies, and under some conditions, evidence-based information. These results provide support for Frankfurt’s original insidious bullshit hypothesis, as well as a preliminary answer to the why question (i.e., why people engage in so much bullshitting behavior)—although bullshit may serve as a detriment of those who receive, it can work in favor of the individual bullshitter. A just-desert would appear to be—if it be true—that bullshit may get one to the top, but it never lets one stay there (Sadhguru, 2016). Downstream, negative consequences for bullshitters is a topic that awaits empirical attention. Until then, it appears that a little concern with the truth, access to readily available evidence, and perhaps treating bullshit as false as we do lies—until otherwise supported by evidence—will make all the difference. References Albarracín, D., Kumkale, G.T., & Vento, P.P.-D. (2017). How people can become persuaded by weak messages presented by credible communicators: Not all sleeper effects are created equal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 68 , 171-180. Cheyne, J. A., & Pennycook, G. (2016). The seductions of pretentious bullshit: An empirical study. Skeptic , 21 (1), 40-45. Cook, T.D., & Flay, B.R. (1978). The temporal persistence of experimentally induced attitude change: An evaluative review. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Academic Press. Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 144 , 993-1002. Frankfurt, H. G. (1986). On bullshit. Raritan Quarterly Review , 6 , 81-100. Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 16 , 107-112. Littrell, S., Risko, E. F., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2021). The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties. British Journal of Social Psychology , 60 , 248-270. Petrocelli, J. V. (2018). Antecedents of bullshitting. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 76 , 249-258. Petrocelli, J. V. (2021a). The life-changing science of detecting bullshit . St. Martin’s Press. Petrocelli, J. V. (2021b). Bullshitting and persuasion: The persuasiveness of a disregard for the truth. British Journal of Social Psychology , 60 , 1464-1483. Petrocelli, J. V., Rice, E. N., & Shang, S. X. (2020). Testing the insidious bullshit hypothesis with the illusory truth effect . Poster session presented at the 21st annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Petrocelli, J. V., Seta, C. E., & Seta, J. J. (2023). Lies and bullshit: The negative effects of misinformation grow stronger over time. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 37 , 409-418. Petrocelli, J. V., Silverman, H. E., & Shang, S. X. (2023). Social perception and influence of lies vs. bullshit: A test of the insidious bullshit hypothesis. Current Psychology , 42 , 9609-9617. Pratkanis, A.R., Greenwald, A.G., Leippe, M.R., & Baumgardner, M.H. (1988). In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead: Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 , 203-218. Priester, J., Wegener, D., Petty, R., & Fabrigar, L. (1999). Examining the psychological process underlying the sleeper effect: The elaboration likelihood model explanation. Media Psychology , 1 , 27-48. Sadhguru. (2016). Inner engineering: A yogi’s guide to joy . Harmony. Watch Leave a reply/comment: Name Email (will not be published) Website Subject Your message Send Thanks for submitting! Connect with John

Authenticity in Leadership THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2023 | COMMEN T So many of the gurus of the leadership development advice industry preach about authenticity. Authentic leaders do this, authentic leaders do that… Some have positioned authenticity as the “gold standard of leadership”. But, what might the readily available evidence concerning authenticity and its link to effective leadership lead us to believe? Authenticity is often valued and considered an important characteristic of effective leadership. Yet, authenticity may not always be the most important or sufficient on its own. There are several reasons for this perspective: Contextual Variability: What is considered authentic can vary depending on the cultural, organizational, or situational context. Authenticity in one context may not translate well to another. Great leaders often need to adapt to different situations and environments, which may require them to behave differently to meet the needs and expectations of those they are leading. Balancing Authenticity and Adaptability: Effective leaders must strike a balance between being authentic and adapting to the needs of their team or organization. While being true to oneself is important, rigidly adhering to one’s authentic self can be detrimental if it hinders the leader’s ability to connect with and motivate others. Ethical Considerations: Authenticity is not a blanket justification for any behavior or action. Some leaders might claim authenticity to justify harmful or unethical behavior. Great leadership includes a strong ethical foundation that goes beyond simply being true to oneself. Communication and Influence: Effective leadership often requires the ability to communicate, influence, and inspire others. This may involve framing messages and actions in ways that resonate with the audience. Authenticity alone may not be sufficient for effective communication and influence, as it doesn’t guarantee that the message will be well-received or understood. Developing Leadership Skills: Leadership skills can be learned and developed over time. Leaders may need to acquire new skills and behaviors that are not necessarily part of their authentic selves. This process of growth and development can be crucial for success as a leader. Team and Organizational Goals: Leaders must prioritize the goals and needs of their team or organization. Sometimes, this might require them to set aside their personal preferences and act in a way that is in the best interest of the collective. Authenticity alone might not always align with these broader goals. Emotional Intelligence: Emotional intelligence, which involves recognizing and understanding the emotions of oneself and others, is a critical component of effective leadership. Great leaders use their emotional intelligence to navigate interpersonal relationships, make sound decisions, and motivate their teams. While authenticity is important, emotional intelligence goes beyond mere authenticity to encompass empathy, self-awareness, and effective interpersonal skills—and helps to avoid breaking the no asshole rules of finer leadership. In conclusion, it is quite clear from the available empirical evidence on authenticity as a characteristic of effective leaders that authenticity is a valuable quality in leadership, but it must be considered in conjunction with other leadership traits and skills. Effective leadership often requires a blend of authenticity, adaptability, ethical behavior, strong communication skills, and a focus on organizational goals. The importance of each of these characteristics may vary depending on the specific leadership situation and the needs of the team or organization being led. Still, many would concur that authenticity holds significant value. We often prefer to associate with, or be led by, individuals who are genuine rather than those who feign their true selves. Embracing behaviors that resonate with truth, transparency, and a genuine connection to one’s core identity is crucial and constitutes an admirable trait in leadership. Nevertheless, there’s a caveat to this authenticity principle: when your true self exhibits negative qualities, being unfiltered can lead to issues. In practice, we’ve noticed that some executives have used the pursuit of authenticity as a justification for undesirable conduct. It’s vital to recognize that authenticity encompasses not only the positive aspects, such as your values, aspirations, and cherished qualities. For many, their unfiltered selves can also manifest unpleasant traits. When your authenticity manifests as excessive criticism, poor communication, coarseness, judgmental attitudes, or inflexibility, you might be displaying your most genuine self, but you’re not necessarily displaying your best self . Often, these most authentic aspects of a leader require the most management. When urging executives to become their best selves, we often encounter resistance. People resist changing behaviors that feel most natural, even when everyone agrees that change would be beneficial. For instance, we had a recent client, a national magazine head, who insisted on using her preferred process, which felt most natural to her, to produce each issue. When asked to consider changing her process to make life easier for the team, she responded with, “This is just how I work.” She was being authentic, staying true to herself, but this authenticity was obstructing her team from reaching a happier and more productive state. Her excuse, “this is just how I work,” can be conveniently justified by the recent emphasis on authenticity, cautioning leaders not to pretend to be someone they’re not. However, hiding behind the authenticity excuse serves as a convenient way to evade the truth about our true selves, our actual behaviors, and their reasons. Instead, consider following these steps: 1. Gain insight into how others perceive you. Ask a trusted colleague what challenges they encounter when working with you. Listen without offering explanations or justifications, and write down their feedback in their own words. 2. Reflect on the feedback. In private, respond in writing to your colleague’s criticisms. Consider your thoughts and justifications for your actions. List them all, using your crankiest, most defiant, yet authentic voice. Read it aloud to acknowledge that this voice is a part of you. 3. Seek an alternative approach. The next time you feel compelled to engage in the behavior that makes you challenging, determine a different course of action. 4. Make amends. Reconnect with the colleague and apologize for your challenging behavior. Commit to a plan to rectify the situation. If you repeat the same behavior, despite your intentions, plan how you will address the consequences. 5. Impose consequences. Pledge to face consequences for misbehavior. If you engage in the problematic behavior again, what will it cost you? Perhaps you’ll offer coffee or lunch to the affected individual, or compose an apology poem. The consequence should be constructive but carry a personal cost. While your authentic self should serve as the foundation of your leadership style, it’s prudent to examine your true self critically before presenting and defending everything that comes naturally. Admiring leaders like Jack Welch (CEO of General Electric between 1981 and 2001, and author of Winning) is one thing, but don’t delude yourself into believing that unleashing your authentic self entirely is the key to effective leadership. Watch Leave a reply/comment: Name Email (will not be published) Website Subject Your message Send Thanks for submitting! Connect with John

Research As an experimental social psychologist, my research involves experimental social cognition and judgment and decision making. My specific research interests include bullshitting behavior, bullshit detection and disposal, attitude strength and persuasion, counterfactual thinking and metacognition. Bullshitting Behavior and Bullshit Detection/Disposal. Bullshitting is a pervasive social behavior involving intentionally or unintentionally communicating with little to no regard or concern for truth, genuine evidence, and/or established semantic, logical, systemic, or empirical knowledge. Bullshitting is often characterized by, but not limited to, using rhetorical strategies designed to disregard truth, evidence and/or established knowledge, such as exaggerating or embellishing one’s knowledge, competence, or skills in a particular area or talking about things of which one knows nothing about in order to impress, fit in with, influence, or persuade others. Bullshitting is different from lying in that the liar is actually concerned with the truth – the liar tries to divert us from the truth. The bullshitter doesn’t really care what the truth is, he/she isn’t even trying – the bullshitter may be correct in his/her claim but wouldn’t know it. What are the antecedents, consequences, and utilities of this seemingly pervasive and inevitable behavior? Under what social conditions and/or mental states is bullshitting attenuated or augmented? Under what conditions are people receptive and/or sensitive to bullshit? How can people better detect and dispose of bullshit? Attitude Strength and Persuasion. How do various components of attitude strength (e.g., attitude certainty, attitudinal ambivalence, and attitude accessibility) affect attitude change and resistance to persuasive attempts? How do sub-components of such attitude attributes influence the attitude-behavior link, attitude stability, persistence, and resistance to persuasive attempts? Counterfactual Thinking. Counterfactual thinking involves mentally simulating alternatives to reality and playing out the consequences of those alternatives (i.e., “could have,” “would have,” “should have,” or “if only” thinking). What role does counterfactual thinking play in reactions to general and specific cases? How does it affect memory for previous events? What role does it play in learning and performance on tasks? How does counterfactual thinking affect a physician’s diagnostic and treatment selection decisions? Metacognition. Metacognition involves thinking about one’s thoughts and thought processes. How do metacognitive components of attitude strength affect attitude change? How does a metacognitive aspect of counterfactual thinking (i.e., counterfactual potency) influence affect, judgments of social targets, and decisions? Connect with John

About John Social Psychologist Dr. John V. Petrocelli has the goal of helping organizational leaders better position themselves and their organizations to reach their fullest potential. With strategies rooted in scientific research, that’s exactly what he does, empowering organizational leaders with proven tools for improving communication, strengthening influence, and establishing a foundation of evidence-based management. A provocative and convincing speaker, Dr. Petrocelli offers practical and immediately actionable strategies that actually enhance the chances of successfully meeting professional and organizational goals. By emphasizing social science and the things that successful organizations do consistently and effectively, he shows organizations and their employees a clear path to accomplishing their goals. Dr. Petrocelli offers keynotes and seminars on a variety of leadership, communication, and evidence-based management topics that are critical to high-performance in business management, market intelligence, technology, behavioral design, finance, education, and health care. John V. Petrocelli is represented by Les Tuerk of BrightSight Speakers , 609-924-3060 or les@brightsightgroup.com [see Dr. Petrocelli’s Speaker page at BrightSight Speakers ]. Be first in line for new content and actionable ideas by joining John’s popular email newsletter. Each week, he shares educational (and entertaining) videos, articles, and podcasts that will help you and your team to use better information to make better decisions. Over 40,000 leaders just like you have subscribed. Enter your email now and join us. Enter Your Best Email below Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Connect with John

featured news articles article Persuasive Bullsh*tters Short of lying, bullshitting involves communicating something with little to no regard for the truth, established knowledge, or genuine evidence. Although most people believe bullshit is relatively harmless... Read More article , video Evidence-Based Leadership with A/B Testing From intuition and common-sense (i.e., conventional management strategies) to maturity and sound A/B testing, better information often lends to better decisions... Read More article Artificial Intelligence Many of us will soon find ourselves embracing generative artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily lives. Those who resist will be akin to those who clung to those outdated library card catalogs... Read More article Business Leadership BS The wonderful thing about the marketplace of business ideas and the leadership development advice industry is that they're full of ideas. The problem with the marketplace of business ideas and the leadership development... Read More article Authenticity in Leadership Some have positioned authenticity as the “gold standard of leadership”. But, what might the readily available evidence concerning authenticity and its link to effective leadership lead us to believe?... Read More article Introversion in the Workplace Because introverts tend to be more reserved, primarily due to their inclination to listen and reflect rather than speak, they may experience lower visibility in the workplace, potentially resulting in missed opportunities... Read More article My 3 Favorite Reads in 2023 I was among the 1,000 authors and super readers asked by Shepherd.com for their 3 favorite reads of the year. Here they are... Read More video Persuasive Bullshitters and the Insidious Bullshit Hypothesis Why are many beliefs based on bullshit rather than facts, data, evidence, or established knowledge? ... See More podcasts and videos video Science of Sports Betting 2-6-2025 WFU professor delves into the statistical principles and mathematical models that drive modern sports betting, explaining how odds are calculated, probabilities are determined, and risk is evaluated. In an interview with Fox 8's Michael Hennessey, viewers gain insight into the science behind betting predictions and outcomes... Read More audio Puffery, Bullshit and Lies 10-16-2024 Robots and AI are being portrayed in overly optimistic videos, television shows and advertisements. Tesla’s Optimus robot is a prime example. In this episode Dwain Allan and Christoph Bartneck interview John Petrocelli and Nick Lee on how this puffery, bullshit and lies affect consumers and vulnerable people... Read More video John V. Petrocelli Psychology Prof. and Juliet Jeske of Decoding Fox News 4-28-2024 John V. Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Wake Forest University and author of The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit breaks down propaganda on Fox News with Decoding Fox News founder, Juliet Jeske... Read More audio Ep 289: The Art of Detecting Teen B.S. 5-13-2024 John Petrocelli, author of The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit, explains how parents can identify when their teens are bullshitting and how to raise teens who critically evaluate the information they encounter... Read More audio Interview with John V. Petrocelli author of The Life-Changing Science of Detecting BS 12-26-2023 John V. Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and professor of psychology... Read More audio How to detect bullshit with professor John Petrocelli 12-6-2023 Do you know when someone is bullshitting? What is the difference between lying and bullshitting? To help us answer these questions and many more we have invited Professor John Petrocelli... Read More audio The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit with John Petrocelli 12-13-2022 Did you know the world “bullshit” might just be an Australian invention? During World War I, Australian troops found themselves arriving at the front and suddenly under the command of British officers... Read More audio Dissecting Decision-Making Process through Science with John Petrocelli 11-15-2022 Do you know the consequences of relying on your personal experience rather than evidence? Most people tend to make their decisions just based on their personal experience which can create negative outcomes. You can change this... Read More audio How to Stop Obsessing Over “What If…?” 11-2-2022 Have you ever messed up — or just thought you messed up! — and then obsessed over what you could have done better? This episode is about what’s happening in your brain, why you’re doing it, and how to finally let it go... Read More audio The Science of Bullshit Detection 10-11 -2022 Is bullshitting simply human nature? And how do we tell the difference between bullshit and straight up lies? ... Read More audio Cut the Bull$hit with Dr. John Petrocelli 8-30-2022 Bryan is joined by Wake Forest University's Professor of Psychology Dr. John Petrocelli to talk about bull$hIT. Dr. Petrocelli is a social psychologist who specializes in the concept of BS as a social behavior. BS does not just exist in politics and sales, it is everywhere... Read More video THE OPEN MIND: Detecting Malarkey 5-16-2022 Wake Forest University psychologist John Petrocelli discusses the importance of fact- and nonsense-checking... See More video #591 John Petrocelli - The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit 2-24-2022 A conversation with Ricardo Lopes, The Dissenter... See More audio #018 Bullshitting with Dr. John Petrocelli 12-19-2021 In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ryan Moyer speaks with social psychologist Dr. John Petrocelli about the difference between BS and lying, the various kinds of BS and why people engage in them, the danger... Read More audio 648 How to Spot Bullsh*t When You Hear It & How to Diffuse and Resolve Any Conflict 10-28-2021 Since we don’t swear on this podcast, we won’t use the word that BS stands for – but we all know what it is. As you are aware, a lot of people fling BS around to try to make themselves look good or try to sell you something. So, how do you tell what is true, what is a lie and what is BS?... Read More audio John Petrocelli | The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit 10-11-2021 John Petrocelli reveals the science behind detecting BS, which has become so pervasive in today's world. What is the difference between lying and bullshitting? What makes BS more dangerous than lying? How do we develop the critical thinking habits... Read More audio X57: The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit with John Petrocelli 10-1-2021 Nowadays, it’s so difficult to decipher what’s truth, and what’s just a load of crap spewed to make a profit. Unfortunately most people don’t have time to research and wade through the mountains of available information and so they trust what they’re told and hope for the best... Read More audio EP 140: Bullshit, Lying, and the Truth with John V. Petrocelli 9-30-2021 In this episode, Kimberly and John discuss his newest book “The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit” which explains the differences between bullshitting, lying, and deciphering the truth. John explains many different facets of how humans are susceptible to bullshit... Read More audio The LawBusiness Insider with Steve Murphy: Interview with John V. Petrocelli 9-23-2021 Bullshitting is a pervasive social behavior involving communication with little to no concern for evidence and/or established semantic, logical, systemic, or empirical knowledge. Bullshitting is different from lying in that the liar is actually concerned with the truth... Read More audio The Truth or Make Believe with Ed Fulbright on Mastering Your Money Radio 9-13-2021 Would your life change if you can detect someone is telling you a BSer? I know mine would. Part of this is determining who is telling you truth or the whole truth... Read More audio Primal Blueprint Podcast, Featuring John V. Petrocelli #519 9-8-2021 Elle Russ chats with John V. Petrocelli – an experimental social psychologist who researches, writes, and speaks about the science of communication and decision making... Read More video EPISODE #207 John Petrocelli — The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit 9-7-2021 Bullshit is the foundation of contaminated thinking and bad decisions that leads to health consequences, financial losses, legal consequences, broken relationships, and wasted time and resources... See More audio #168 John Petrocelli on The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit 9-1-2021 Experimental social psychologist John Petrocelli chats with Trey Elling about The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit . What is bullshit? Why do people bullshit? Who is most likely to peddle bullshit? And how can one properly snuff out bullshit... Read More audio How to Detect Bullshit with John Petrocelli 8-30-2021 Bullshit can be found all around us. But how do you know when it’s actually harmful and dangerous? John Petrocelli, social psychologist and author of the new book The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit joins Modern Mentor for a conversation to... Read More audio The Science of Detecting Bullshit with John Petrocelli 8-27-2021 What's the difference between BS and lying? Is there a reason why it's so important that we learn to detect BS? And what's my beef with Oprah? We discuss this and much more... Read More audio 696: How to Separate Truth from Bullsh*t for Smarter Decisions with John V. Petrocelli 8 - 23-2021 What's the difference between BS and lying? Is there a reason why it's so important that we learn to detect BS? And what's my beef with Oprah? We discuss this and much more... Read More audio Stimulus and Equities, Working in Government, Detecting Bullshit 8-8-2021 This week’s topics include stimulus inequities, working in government, and detecting bullshit... Read More audio The Science of Bullshit with John Petrocelli 7-27-2021 With a little dose of skepticism, a commitment to truth seeking and John Petrocelli’s critical thinking defensive tactics, we can all become bullshit detectives... Read More audio The Science Bullshit with Dr. John Petrocelli 7-27-2021 We are joined by Dr. Petrocelli (@JohnVPetro) to talk about his new book "The Life-Changing Science of How to Detect Bullshit ". Tune in if you want to learn why people likely bullshit more often than you think, what types of bullshit are the worst... Read More audio 333 - John V. Petrocelli (The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit ) 7-25-2021 I interview John V. Petrocelli, Professor of Psychology at Wake Forest University, about his new book The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit. What exactly is bullshit, and how does it differ from a lie? Why do people bullshit?... Read More audio Inside the Mind of the Bullshitter: Science Weekly Podcast 10-25-2029 In 1986, philosopher Harry G Frankfurt wrote: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.” This was the opening line of his seminal essay (later a book), On Bullshit, in which Frankfurt put forward his theory on the subject. Three decades later... Read More video Why BS is more dangerous than a lie | John Petrocelli | TEDx University of Nevada 2 -28 -2019 BS'ing (communicating with little to no regard for truth, established knowledge, or evidence) is a major problem polluting our communicative climate. Based on empirical research, John Petrocelli discusses the consequences of BS and how understanding its causes... See More in the news FactCzech | Prerequisites and Consequences of Cowarding | 5/22/2018 WXII News 12 | Is Cheap In and Posh Out? Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes | 5/30/2009 Scientific American | See Why Everyone Gets the Monty Hall Puzzle Wrong | 7/16/2024 Skept ical Inquirer | Evidence-Based Optimism at CSICon 2022 | 3/1/2023 Entrepreneur | How to Overcome Anything: Stop Obsessing Over 'What If?' | 1/1/2023 Cornelius Today | You might say Dr. Petrocelli has more than a BS in BS | 9/1/2022 Lake Norman Currents | Detecting BS: Social psychology professor shares need for critical thinking habits in book | 8/1/2022 Forbes | Why Do We Trust the Wrong People? | 4/14/2022 Shepherd.com | The Best Books on Thinking About and Detecting Bullshit, Misinformation, and Fake News | 3/21/2022 Next Big Idea Club | The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit | 9/8/2021 Next Big Idea Club | 5 Books About How People Lie, Bluff, and Con Their Way to Success | 9/8/2021 The Wall Street Journal | Your B.S. Detector Is Rusty: It’s Time to Sharpen It | 7/14/2021 Center for Inquiry, Skeptical Inquirer Presents | Persuasive Bullshitters and the Insidious Bullshit Hypothesis | 11/5/2020 Psychology Today | The Psychology of Bullshit | 7/2/2020 The Guardian | No Word of a Lie: Scientists Rate the World’s Biggest Peddlers of Bull | 3/31/2019 Money Magazine | How Financial Fraudsters Like Melissa Caddick Can Fool Anyone | 8/4/2021 NEVADAToday | Community Support for TEDxUniversityofNevada Larger than Ever | 2/26/2019 Nevada Sagebrush | 2019 TEDxUNR Captivates Crowd with Thoughtful Array of Speakers | 2/25/2019 Winston-Salem Journal | Higher Education Notebook | 2/22/2019 Science Trends | Communicative Climate Change: Cloudy With a Chance of Bullshit | 12/17/2018 Government Executive | Men Have Trouble Speaking Up At Work, Too | 10/9/2018 Leader Says What | A Leadership Guide to Bullshitting: 5 Ways to Become a Human Bullshit Detector | 7/9/2018 Psychology Today | A Recipe for BS | 7/1/2018 Psychology Today | What a Bunch of Bull: The Art and Science of BS | 6/30/2018 Paul Taylor | The Rise Of Business Bullshit – And How We Can Fight It | 6/19/2018 DiscoverMagazine.com | What Makes Us Okay With Bullshitting? | 6/4/2018 Big Think | The Results are in From the First Study of What Encourages and Deters People From Bullshitting | 6/1/2018 Quartz at Work | Are You Inadvertently Encouraging Your Colleagues to Bullshit You? | 5/30/2018 Ladders | New Study Explains How to Deter BS in the Workplace | 5/29/2018 The British Psychological Society: Research Digest | The Results are in From the First Study of What Encourages and Deters People From Bullshitting | 5/22/2018 Skepchick | The Scientific Study of Bull**** | 5/17/2018 NiemanLab | You See It, You Buy It: Just Being Exposed to Fake News Makes You More Likely to Believe It | 5/11/2018 Smithsonian.com | Study Looks at Why We All Spew So Much BS | 5/11/2018 Poynter | This Study is All About What Makes People Bullshitters | 5/7/2018 PsychCentral | The psychology of bullshitting: 7 revelations | 4/25/2018 The Wall Street Journal | It’s Time to Tune Up Your B.S. Detector | 3/20/2018 Popular Science | Head Trip: When Should You Change Your Mind? | Spring 2018 iBloomBerg Reports | 9/22/2015 The Wall Street Journal | Conflict Resolution | 9/21/2015 Wake Forest News | Let the Games Take Over | 5/30/2009 Connect with John

Virtual Keynote Speaker Today, work includes working from anywhere. Hence, events and training involve conducting them from anywhere. Dr. John V. Petrocelli and his team can help bring an entertaining and enlightening experience to your virtual meeting, and one that prepares everyone to promote an evidence-based culture from anywhere. Change how your organization approaches decision-making with better information, innovation, collaboration, and productivity. As a skilled researcher who actually conducts research on the topics he discusses and an inspiring communicator, John is one of the foremost minds shaping the future of work behavior. Provocative and persuasive, John shares captivating stories and practical takeaways that give audiences compelling insights into how organizations and individuals can do their best work. Take a look at his virtual keynote speaking topics below and let us know how John can tailor these ideas to your needs. The Michael Shermer Show segment Center for Inquiry segment Coaching WBECS segment Executive Forum segment Featured Topics THE LIFE-CHANGING SCIENCE OF DETECTING BULLS#!T From every angle, whether it be from colleagues, meetings, or the marketplace of business ideas, business leaders constantly encounter bulls#!t that plagues their judgments, beliefs, and decisions. Short of lying, the sources of bulls#!t pay no attention to truth, evidence, or established knowledge, and use a broad array of rhetorical strategies to sound like they know what they are talking about when their obligations to provide an opinion far exceed their actual knowledge. How informed can beliefs about anything—and decisions based on those beliefs—be if they are based on bulls#!t-reasoning and communication? How can bulls#!t in the workplace be better detected and disposed? This session directly addresses commonly encountered bulls#!t in the workplace and its unwanted effects in the ways of better detection, better disposal, and better decisions. PROMOTING AN EVIDENCE-BASED CULTURE IN THE WORKPLACE What is bulls#!t and why is there so much of it? What effects does bulls#!t have on workplace communication and how can its unwanted effects be replaced by the many benefits of evidence-based communication? Apart from choosing to be smarter, there are critical benefits that, Dr. John Petrocelli suggests, our current way of thinking and communicating in the workplace often ignores. It’s time to stop the bulls#!t with better detection and better disposal of this insidious communicative substance. Based on Dr. Petrocelli’s latest TEDx Talk, Why BS is More Dangerous Than a Lie, his own empirical research, and his new book, The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit , Dr. Petrocelli presents an eye-opening, groundbreaking, and evidenced-based tour of the causes, dysfunctions, and costs of bullshit, showing how it operates in our communicative culture and how you can make significantly better decisions in the workplace. We’ve long assumed that bullshitting is a harmless social activity. Perhaps this is why it is such a common social activity. In fact, research shows there are over three dozen situations and reasons people bulls#!t in the workplace. However, social psychological research suggests we couldn’t be more wrong. Bulls#!t communications, at the expense of evidence-based communication, have devastating effects on beliefs about what is true, memory, attitudes and opinions, as well as judgment and decision making. Dr. Petrocelli explores causes of bullshitting, how to best detect bullshit in the workplace, how to properly dispose of it, and how best to replace bullshit reasoning and communication with its antithesis—evidence-based reasoning and communication. THE ARTS AND SCIENCES OF PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE AT WORK Buy-ins on ideas and best practices do not occur on their own. Without buy-in from the team, any leader is just another tuned-out voice. That is why the single greatest ability that a leader can develop in the ways of selling a product, motivating a team, or growing a company is their ability to communicate persuasively. Dr. John Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and an expert on attitudes and persuasion. In this talk based on his empirical research, Dr. Petrocelli takes the audience on a journey to understanding principles of influence and the best alpha and omega strategies of social influence proven to reduce resistance and improve persuasion. In order for things to emerge as best practices within an organization you have to know the behavioral science in order to hone your messages properly and understand how these factors have the greatest impact, leading to the greatest persuasive success. Coming from someone who actually conducts empirical research on the topics of persuasion and influence, he’ll share simple strategies, based on scientific research and proven effective for how to maximize influence and inoculate the established influence from unwanted influences in the way of establishing and promoting best practices. BEST PRACTICE DECISION MAKING THROUGH EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT Dr. John Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and an expert in judgment and decision making and one of the world’s foremost experts on evidence-based communication. He is a firm believer in the well-established belief that better information does not always lead to better judgment and decision-making, but that better judgment and decision-making almost always requires better information. Clearly, reaching successful outcomes in organizations will require halting some common ways of making decisions that are so widely accepted and recommended that they are rarely questioned, yet deeply flawed, such as casual benchmarking other organizations, false analogies that pass for best practices, and dogmatism of deeply endorsed, but unexamined ideologies. Yet, there is good news for leaders and their organizations, because every day there are opportunities to use better information to gain advantages over their competition. Doing so simply entails using evidence-based management. The foundations of evidence-based management are the scientifically-supported assertions that recognizing much of the conventional wisdom about management is built on dangerous half-truths, using better logic, employing facts to the extent possible, facing the hard facts about what works and what doesn’t, and rejecting total nonsense that too often passes for sound advice, all empower leaders and organizations to perform better. As Dr. Petrocelli will show you, the practice of evidence-based management is neither mysterious nor extraordinarily difficult to implement. More importantly, evidence-based management produces superior results. Even better, evidence-based management can generate sustained competitive advantages because so few organizations and their leaders do it—let alone do it well—that the probability of imitation will not be high. Previous Clients Include Pohl Consulting and Training, Inc Contact To learn more about having John as a keynote speaker for your event, please complete the brief contact form below: Name Email Organization Event date How did you learn about John? Tell us more about your event: Send Thanks for submitting! Connect with John

Contact Wake Forest University Department of Psychology P.O. Box 7778 Winston-Salem, NC 27109 petrocjv@wfu.edu (336)-758-4171 Name Address Email Phone Subject Message Submit Thanks for submitting! Connect with John

Connect with John

The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit reveals the critical thinking habits you can develop to recognize and combat pervasive false information and delusional thinking that has become a common feature of everyday life. Finalist for the Audie Award for Humor . Order From: What Others Are Saying Connect with John

Artificial Intelligence THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2023 | COMMENT Many of us will soon find ourselves embracing generative artificial intelligence (AI) in our daily lives. Those who resist will be akin to those who clung to those outdated library card catalogs. Prominent examples of this technology include ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, Anthropic’s Claude, and Inflection’s Pi. Productivity-enhancing AI tends to boost our output, altering how we work without necessarily reducing our overall work hours. Recently, major U.S. tech companies have revealed their intentions to deeply integrate generative AI into the everyday tools we rely on, making avoidance nearly impossible. In the past two weeks alone, Microsoft announced the comprehensive integration of generative AI tools into Windows 11, Google updated its Bard AI to draw from all your documents, emails, and calendar data, Amazon showcased enhanced generative AI capabilities for its Alexa smart assistant, and Meta introduced chat-based assistants and celebrity-driven chatbots across Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook. Even Apple, in the process of developing its own text-based generative AI, introduced a new accessibility feature for iPhones using a different form of generative AI to replicate a user’s voice. While the accessibility and prevalence of generative AI tools do not guarantee their widespread use, early adopters are already benefiting from their utility, suggesting broader adoption on the horizon. However, one potential challenge with using AI in this manner is its proclivity to generate incorrect information (i.e., BS), an inherent aspect of its functioning that may be difficult to eliminate. This limitation somewhat reduces its value, requiring human oversight for all AI-generated work. Nevertheless, AI excels at handling routine tasks, such as generating standard code or text, transforming its users into editors rather than content creators. AI has become an essential tool, and not embracing it means missing out on its potential benefits. Ultimately, AI is all about trying to achieve better results with less effort. Watch Leave a reply/comment: Name Email (will not be published) Website Subject Your message Send Thanks for submitting! Connect with John