Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#101

Post by lispm »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #84
peteretep wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Also: > 2. The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty. Describes reading the description of an artwork at a Modern Art gallery pretty well

That one clearly describes LISP. Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax. The hidden meaning, which surprised even its creator at the time that he wrote "RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE", that a mathematical syntax should also be a fully implementable languag…

> Lisp has an abstract beauty in that it is a homoiconic language thought up as an intellectual exercise from a small number of basic rules and simple syntax.

That's the idealistic view. Also LISP was developed over some years, based on earlier languages for list processing (IPL, ...) and similar.

The paper 'RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS OF SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS AND THEIR COMPUTATION BY MACHINE' was a presentation to a specific (more scientific) audience, while there were earlier and at the same time already 'real' language manuals published, which were concerned with less 'abstract' topics.

See for example:

http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/MIT/LISP_P...

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#102

Post by red75prime »

foldr wrote: post #91
red75prime wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

11 does make sense even if it is false. As I see it, the distinction is on make sense/doesn't make sense axis.

It's supposed to be a distinction between bullshit statements and profound statements, which isn't the same thing at all.

Surface profoundness is similar in those statements, so I don't think that dividing them by "makes sense" axis is too wrong.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#103

Post by newsbinator »

__david__ wrote: post #50
tabs_masterrace wrote: post #28

> Health and tolerance provides creativity for the future. This one is classified bullshit, although I think it makes at least somewhat sense.

Howso? I don't see how either health or tolerance is related to creativity… Also why only future creativity?

It's really hard to be creative if all your attention is pulled by your body failing, impending death, and the inadequacies of everyone and everything around you.

It's a lot easier to be a content consumer while in poor physical/mental health than to be a content creator.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#104

Post by runesoerensen »

foldr wrote: post #58
duopixel wrote: post #19

A simple self-experiment if you haven't read the paper, find which of these sentences are bullshit. Answer in order without reading further ahead, and don't go back to change your answers (as to replicate experimental conditions). * 1. A river cuts through a rock, not because of its power but it's persistence. 2. The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty. 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seek…

>11. Imagined pain does not hurt less because it is imagined. I guess I can see how this might be classed as "not bullshit", but I don't see how it's profound at all. It just seems false to me. I agreed with all the other classifications. edit : I know complaining about downvotes is verboten here, but seriously, that's just my take on it. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of what the profound meaning is that I…

I participated in various research experiments at the local university (to earn a bit of money on the side while in high school). The ones that paid the most where usually pain experiments, so I've been through quite a few of those.

One thing I found interesting is how incredibly subjective and relative painful experiences are. Increasing and varied types of pain would typically be inflicted over the course of an experiment, while I had to perform various tasks and grade the pain on a scale from 0-10.

Very often I'd grade the initial pain around 6-7, and increase that to the maximum of 9-10 during the experiment. The pain I experienced by the end would however be much more severe, and if I could've corrected the initial grading it'd have been closer to 2-3.

I guess you could say that I was unable to imagine the level of pain I'd later experience, and how relative pain is perceived in this type of experiment.

Just a tangential anecdote, but I didn't call BS on that statement :)

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#105

Post by foldr »

red75prime wrote: post #102
foldr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's supposed to be a distinction between bullshit statements and profound statements, which isn't the same thing at all.

Surface profoundness is similar in those statements, so I don't think that dividing them by "makes sense" axis is too wrong.

Surface profoundness is a contradiction in terms.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#106

Post by sophistication »

duopixel wrote: post #19

A simple self-experiment if you haven't read the paper, find which of these sentences are bullshit. Answer in order without reading further ahead, and don't go back to change your answers (as to replicate experimental conditions). * 1. A river cuts through a rock, not because of its power but it's persistence. 2. The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty. 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seek…

The only sentence that confused me is this one:

> 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seeking person.

I'm not a native English speaker, so I might be wrong, but I'm reading this as "the future will more likely reveal the truth to those who are open-minded" which seems to be too profound to be bullshit. Of course, "irrational fact" is an awkward way to refer to false beliefs, but awkwardness≠bullshit.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#107

Post by malloryerik »

stubish wrote: post #75
malloryerik wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 11. Imagined pain does not hurt less because it is imagined. This statement confuses cause (some damage) and effect (pain) and so should be in the bullshit category, or else it's poorly written/translated. An imagined cause may lead to real pain, for example if you believe you've been betrayed but you haven't. The pain is the same as if you had actually been betrayed, and in both cases that pain isn't imagined, it'…

Pain hurts by definition. Even if the pain is imagined, it still hurts, by definition. If you are imagining something that doesn't hurt, you are not imagining pain, by definition. Pain hurts, even if it is all in your head. Same as 'irrational fears are scary despite being irrational', or 'imaginary fears are scary despite being imaginary'.

Pain is always all in your head. I'm saying that experienced pain is never imagined: it is a real, physical event in the brain, experienced through the mind, a presumably measurable mental phenomenon with physiological, neurochemical aspects. It is the effect of some cause, and that cause could be imagined and it could cause real pain, but if you experience pain, that pain is by definition not imaginary, though the cause may be.

We can imagine other people's pain, however, or hypothetical pain, and that is not the same as experiencing pain itself.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#108

Post by foldr »

runesoerensen wrote: post #104
foldr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>11. Imagined pain does not hurt less because it is imagined. I guess I can see how this might be classed as "not bullshit", but I don't see how it's profound at all. It just seems false to me. I agreed with all the other classifications. edit : I know complaining about downvotes is verboten here, but seriously, that's just my take on it. I'd be interested to hear an explanation of what the profound meaning is that I…

I participated in various research experiments at the local university (to earn a bit of money on the side while in high school). The ones that paid the most where usually pain experiments, so I've been through quite a few of those. One thing I found interesting is how incredibly subjective and relative painful experiences are. Increasing and varied types of pain would typically be inflicted over the course of an exp…

I don't see how that's relevant. That's a situation where you were comparing various real pains to each other in terms of their intensity. You weren't comparing them to imaginary pains.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#109

Post by malloryerik »

addicted wrote: post #83
foldr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you are imagining something that doesn't hurt, you are not imagining pain, by definition. By the same logic, I can feel happy just by imagining myself feeling happy?

Yes you can. In fact, considering happiness is a feeling, it’s a reasonable question whether there is even a difference between feeling happy and “being” happy.

Imagining yourself feeling happy can lead to you really feeling happy, but imagined happiness is not the same as experienced happiness. You imagine being happy, and _then_ might put you in the right state of mind for actually experiencing happiness. Let's remember that also the mind is either a physical phenomenon or else it is a spiritual, supernatural one. I go for physical.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#110

Post by red75prime »

foldr wrote: post #105
red75prime wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surface profoundness is similar in those statements, so I don't think that dividing them by "makes sense" axis is too wrong.

Surface profoundness is a contradiction in terms.

OK, deep soundingness.
Post reply on HN