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

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#251

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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 was nodding along until I realized that you're proposing "a bloody-minded willingness to argue over meaningless technical minutiae" is a good thing.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#252

Post by roywiggins »

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…

It seems to me that the officially "bullshit" sentences are basically meaningless, rather than false. You can disagree about statements about how rivers wear things away; you can't really disagree with the bullshit sentences because they don't actually mean anything.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#253

Post by Leary »

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…

"Strong water jet cuts through steel, not because of its persistence but its power."

Is there a better demonstration of American pragmatism?

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#254

Post by sporkologist »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #217
sporkologist wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beau…

"The hidden meaning transforms the abstract beauty."

Not BS! Take for instance, E=mc^2. Thought of as a beautiful equation by many in the sciences. But, one of the hidden meanings is you can make an atomic weapon using it, which transforms it to horror.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#255

Post by mattnewton »

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…

The question isn’t whether the statements are true or false, it’s between “bullshit” and “not bullshit” - not bullshit being something like “maybe has an element of truth or is a reasonable position to take”

Believing pain to not be lesser because it comes from psychosomatic sources is reasonably - Most people will act similarly in my experience, and in any case the statement is saying something

Contrast that with the bullshit statements - “The whole silence infinite phenomena”

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#256

Post by Dylan16807 »

foldr wrote: post #163
mcphage wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The paranoiac's pain is real, even if the cause is imaginary. That's exactly the point of the sentence.

No, the sentence talks about imaginary pain, not real pain with imaginary causes.

> No, the sentence talks about imaginary pain, not real pain with imaginary causes.

That's exactly what you're getting wrong. "Imaginary pain" does not mean "imagining a situation where imaginary-you is in pain". It means pain with imaginary causes that applies to the real you.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#257

Post by traek »

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…

Reminds me of Jenny Holzer’s work (she’s a conceptual artist who works with text).

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/63755

"BAD INTENTIONS CAN YIELD GOOD RESULTS"

“CATEGORIZING FEAR IS CALMING"

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#258

Post by sporkologist »

svachalek wrote: post #246
sporkologist wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should have been "behind our eyes" i.e. ourselves. Behind our back is empty space with other people in it. Too ambiguous/poorly thought out.

I think behind our back is a metaphor for "well hidden, even from ourselves"

The only context I've heard is "talking about someone / doing something behind their back." Yeah I suppose you can construct more meanings for it, as OP authors apparently wanted to do. And down the BS rabbit hole we go.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#259

Post by spiderfarmer »

roywiggins wrote: post #252
gcbw2 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems to me that the officially "bullshit" sentences are basically meaningless, rather than false. You can disagree about statements about how rivers wear things away; you can't really disagree with the bullshit sentences because they don't actually mean anything.

Bullshit is defined as something meaningless or not true.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#260

Post by stochastic_monk »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #259
roywiggins wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the officially "bullshit" sentences are basically meaningless, rather than false. You can disagree about statements about how rivers wear things away; you can't really disagree with the bullshit sentences because they don't actually mean anything.

Bullshit is defined as something meaningless or not true.

You’re right, though I think there’s a lean in interpretation toward untrue. I felt my bullshit platitude detector go off a few times on the “normal” sentences, but the wacky sentences made it easy to know that wasn’t what was meant by bullshit.
Post reply on HN