A new study found that people who think meaningless statements are profound are more sympathetic to Republican candidates than Democratic ones in the U.S. presidential election. The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE, which describes itself as "the world’s first multidisciplinary Open Access journal [that] accepts scientifically rigorous research, regardless of novelty." So enjoy this study, share it with friends and loved ones to get them riled up, but probably take it with a few grains of salt.
The study sampled 196 American adults and asked them to identify themselves as liberal or conservative. They also had them give a one to five rating to the (then) six presidential candidates.
The participants were then presented with 20 statements to determine whether or not they found them "profound." The authors claim half of the statements were average, and half were bulls**t. They defined bullsh**t "as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science."
A sample average statement was “A wet person does not fear the rain,” while a sample bulls**t statement was that “Imagination is inside exponential space time events.”
The results: liking the then three Republican candidates, Trump, Cruz, or Rubio correlated with susceptibility to bullsh*t (although liking Trump showed the weakest correlation).
So share this article, have some harmless fun, and always be weary of studies on the Internet.