Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Post by craftyguy » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:13 PM UTC

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.

Post by zamber » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

munchbunny wrote: post #172

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…

Based on the other comments further down, you seem to be caught up on whether the statement is technically true for specific definitions of pain, rather than the underlying point of the statement. The underlying point is that whether you think that someone's suffering (physical or emotional) has a real or imaginary cause, that doesn't make them suffer any more or less, because you are not in their head, and they are…

Post by muzani » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:25 PM UTC

awild wrote: post #7

I am slightly confused by the selection of those sentences, the bullshit sentences barely make grammatical sense, while the profound sentences are honestly pretty banal and sound like things you'd find written on tote-bags sold in etsy stores. I found the study pretty interesting especially table 2 is extremely informative!

Post by gcbw2 » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

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…

Post by sk5t » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

gcbw2 wrote: post #247

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…

This is a terrible research. Even the BS meter they used is not very cited elsewhere. first sentence for example, any engineer knows that strong water jets can precisely cut steel in seconds, much better than any persistent river over several generations. Also, they picked the most subjective "pro-social" measurements. It boils down to "volunteering" (time or money), no matter to what (can have been antifa, MAGA, etc…