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

131–140 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#131

Post by pixl97 »

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…

>1. A river cuts through a rock, not because of its power but it's persistence.

This one annoys me, because of it's ether/or proposition when it is more of a and/or function.

Yes, water including rivers cuts through rocks in more than one way. For example, Ph differences in the water can cause chemical weathering of the rock. In general these effects happen slowly and need to be persistent for any measurable effect.

But to deny the absolute power of a raging torrent and the amount of physical landscape change it is capable of in just moments is absolute folly. A swift river full of sand and chunks of rock can act like a water cutter or a sand blaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods are a testament to the power of water.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#133

Post by EthanHeilman »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #25

Scientists! I offer my services as an author of better bullshit than you can create by feeding a parody generator with marketing materials. Observe! - The unknown flees from the implausible. - Unheard elephants are never green. - Although many people seek apples, few seek the road. - Judgement is like chewing on expensive rubber. - A circle is a square with intention.

You have a real gift at this.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#134

Post by Devon64327 »

skate22 wrote: post #99

Not surprising that people who pick up on bullshit would be less likely to donate to a "non proffit" where many execs make over 1m a year https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/executive-salaries-chariti...

I believe the paper makes a distinction between bullshit receptivity (Eating it up), bullshit sensitivity (Calling it out), and profoundness sensitivity (Correctly identifying profound statements). Donating was positively correlated with profoundness sensitivity and less so to bullshit sensitivity. And slightly negatively with bullshit receptivity.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#135

Post by dingaling »

sophistication wrote: post #106
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.

You did better at an interpretation than I did as a native English speaker. I just parsed it as a string of unrelated words.

Basically if I couldn't understand and agree with or accept the statements at first glance then I considered them bullshit. It was an accurate result except for statement 5 with which I agreed.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#136

Post by runesoerensen »

foldr wrote: post #108
runesoerensen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure it's a bit of a tangent, but related in the sense that I was hurt more, or less, based on my ability to imagine pain (which in my experience was easier after experiencing it).

In any case, the sentence doesn't seem to require the imaginary pain to be equivalent (or even compared) to the pain experienced from whatever is causing the imaginary pain. I don't think that's even possible.

It just requires that the pain someone experience from imagining/actually being tortured hurts just as much, albeit likely differently, regardless of the nature or cause of the pain ("imagined"/"real").

The "profoundness" of the sentence is probably related to the already questionable concept "imagined pain"; and how the pain experienced by other people can easily, and way to often, be dismissed and classified as "imaginary".

The pain still hurts the person experiencing it though, regardless of whether some might call it imaginary (and whether "imaginary pain" even makes sense).

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#137

Post by O2F2 »

Devon64327 wrote: post #129
O2F2 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 False, there is no persistence in the absence of power 2 False, the hidden/unknown has no transformative effect unless it is revealed 3 Missing information, what are 'irrational facts'? 4 Highly debatable, situational 5 False, creativity is not bound to either health or tolerance but modified through their experience. 6 Flowery way to say we like to shift perspective unto flaws that are not our own? We certainly ha…

Now that you've participated in the study, how would you self-evaluate your level of prosocial behavior?

I'd like to point to statement number six and tell you I'm definitely more prosocial than the other guy.

Jokes aside, I do like to help people out but won't go out of my way to seek opportunities to do so.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#138

Post by kurthr »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #116

>> Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. “Your movement transforms universal observations”) from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. “The person who never made a mistake never tried something new”). Why is the second sentence "profound"? If I were to say it sounds like bullshit to me (it actually kind of does?) what would be the counter-argument, other than "we ask…

Bullshit isn't EVEN wrong... its meaningless quackery that uses words people who don't understand find important (intelligence signalling). Profundity is in the eye of the beholder, and I may sometimes argue about specifics, but like stereotypes it has some value even in refutation or outside of its field...F=ma!

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#139

Post by foldr »

runesoerensen wrote: post #136
foldr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure it's a bit of a tangent, but related in the sense that I was hurt more, or less, based on my ability to imagine pain (which in my experience was easier after experiencing it). In any case, the sentence doesn't seem to require the imaginary pain to be equivalent (or even compared) to the pain experienced from whatever is causing the imaginary pain. I don't think that's even possible. It just requires that the pai…

>It just requires that the pain someone experience from imagining/actually being tortured hurts just as much, albeit likely differently, regardless of the nature or cause of the pain ("imagined"/"real").

Right, but imagining being tortured doesn't hurt just as much as being tortured. That is why the sentence strikes me as obviously false.

>The pain still hurts the person experiencing though, regardless of whether some might call it imaginary.

Yes, people might disagree about whether or not someone is in pain. Similarly, they might disagree about whether or not someone is eating cake. That doesn't mean that "imaginary cake tastes just as good as real cake".

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#140

Post by rezeroed »

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…

"Genuinely profound"? I'd call them cheesy.
Post reply on HN