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

211–220 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#211

Post by mirimir »

asteli wrote: post #187
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…

> 8. Your movement transforms universal observations. I interpreted this one as referencing doppler shift of light emitted by celestial objects due to relative motion, but apparently I was overthinking this.

Yeah, it's obviously a restatement of relativity.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#212

Post by sporkologist »

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…

I can set up positive or negative cases for each of these. I call bullshit. There are plenty of bullshit "profound" statements that abound in everyday culture ("Look before you leap" vs. "He who hesitates is lost".... which one is right? It depends!).

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#213

Post by logfromblammo »

SamBam wrote: post #168
pixl97 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.…

That seems to be entirely missing the point that it's a metaphor. It's like taking issue with another of the profound statements: "Your teacher can open the door, but you have to step in." "Well, no," you point out, "you could be carried in by the teacher. Or maybe you're in a wheelchair and you need to wheel in." The door, and stepping, in this case, are to be understood metaphorically. So is the river and the rock.

A bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae is one of the mighty fences separating engineering from philosophy. It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too.

As no engineer ever said, "The house built from enlightenment has insufficient amps coming into the breaker panel."

The philosopher makes a profound statement that less sophisticated thinkers can understand. The engineer just builds a hydraulic cutter that is remarkable in its system to keep the silicon carbide grit slurry from clotting in the supply lines, and asks which river rock you want sliced up.

Intentionally missing the point is a form of trolling. And it's super fun when it's deflating the pomposity out of someone.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#215

Post by mirimir »

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.

Indeed. Thinking happy thoughts can make us feel happy. All experience is colored by records of past experience. So bad shit reminds us of similar bad shit, in the past. And so the bad thoughts and feelings become self-reinforcing. By interrupting that, we can make ourselves happy. Or at least, stoically happy.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#216

Post by mirimir »

FabHK wrote: post #48
ak39 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No 10. sounds just like something Slavoj Zizek would say.

Incidentally, I wonder whether the translation from the Swedish original is somewhat deficient here, as it doesn't seem to be entirely grammatical.

I wonder about that too.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#217

Post by zaptheimpaler »

sporkologist wrote: post #212
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…

I can set up positive or negative cases for each of these. I call bullshit. There are plenty of bullshit "profound" statements that abound in everyday culture ("Look before you leap" vs. "He who hesitates is lost".... which one is right? It depends!).

Well for the non-BS ones, and even the ones you mentioned, they can at least be assigned a truth value. They take A point of view, leaving aside the question of whether that view is right/wrong - like a falsifiable theory. in real life, it will likely apply to some situations but not others.

The BS ones on the other hand are totally meaningless (to me , atleast) like -

"The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty."

Like WTF?

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#218

Post by mirimir »

malloryerik wrote: post #61
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. 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'…

I was tempted to call bullshit on that too. But a lot depends on the sort of pain at issue. If it's emotional pain, sure. But I can't imagine the imagined pain of boiling water hurting in any sense as much as reality.

However, I get that the most effective torture doesn't rely on actual physical pain. The worst thing is the knowledge that one is being permanently disfigured. And that's all about imagining the future.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#219

Post by staticautomatic »

logfromblammo wrote: post #213
SamBam wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be entirely missing the point that it's a metaphor. It's like taking issue with another of the profound statements: "Your teacher can open the door, but you have to step in." "Well, no," you point out, "you could be carried in by the teacher. Or maybe you're in a wheelchair and you need to wheel in." The door, and stepping, in this case, are to be understood metaphorically. So is the river and the rock.

A bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae is one of the mighty fences separating engineering from philosophy. It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too. As no engineer ever said, "The house built from enlightenment has insufficient amps coming into the breaker panel." The philosopher makes a profound…

I don't think it's fair to criticize metaphor as bullshit insofar as the definition of bullshit is something like "saying things without regard for their truth values" (paraphrasing Harry Frankfurt) because metaphor doesn't have the sort of truth requirement you seem to think it does.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#220

Post by bena »

logfromblammo wrote: post #213
SamBam wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to be entirely missing the point that it's a metaphor. It's like taking issue with another of the profound statements: "Your teacher can open the door, but you have to step in." "Well, no," you point out, "you could be carried in by the teacher. Or maybe you're in a wheelchair and you need to wheel in." The door, and stepping, in this case, are to be understood metaphorically. So is the river and the rock.

A bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae is one of the mighty fences separating engineering from philosophy. It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too. As no engineer ever said, "The house built from enlightenment has insufficient amps coming into the breaker panel." The philosopher makes a profound…

> It subtly undermines the supposedly profound statements by pointing out that there's still a little bit of bullshit in them, too

This actually caught me and I found myself trying to game the test itself.

For the first one, I was like "Yeah, it's true and is saying that persistence is important if you want to achieve your goals, but it's kind of a bullshitty way to say it" And then reading the rest, they all felt like they belonged on posters of silhouetted people looking over mighty vistas. So I declared the entire exercise a trick question.

Also. Water saws are fucking scary.

Post reply on HN