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

231–240 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#231

Post by extragood »

gadders wrote: post #92
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 thought it was true, because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb I guess you could debate whether that is "imagined".

I interpreted that one as emotional/psychological vs physical pain.

I was still wrong, because I categorize them differently (not that one is necessarily easier to deal with than the other).

In the end it comes down to semantics either way.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#232

Post by rebuilder »

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…

My wife and I have very different pain thresholds. A few days ago, I was stung by a bee. I told my wife about it after a while, and she was shocked, asking if I wanted a pain killer, but to me it was just a curiosity. To her, a bee sting is a relatively major source of discomfort.

You can't grade pain on an objective scale based on what caused it. It's a subjective experience, and therefore if you truly imagine it, it exists.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#233

Post by apo »

Having been scarred for life from accidental exposure to the drivel of dozens of cryptocurrency "thought leaders," I think the authors may have chosen prosocial behavior as the wrong correlation.

Here are some alternatives that might correlate well to lack of BS-sensitivity and attraction to profound-sounding fluff:

- ability to solve quantitative reasoning problems

- ability to use deductive logic

- likelihood to take unnecessary risks for minimal rewards

- likelihood to change one's mind in face of new information

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#234

Post by muzani »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #150
muzani wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the author meant that "profound" is something that takes a lot of thought to understand, whereas "bullshit" is something that has no meaning.If you find a profound meaning in it, you're "bullshit-insensitive". While the second sentence isn't very profound, it does have a meaning and it's used as an example because most people will understand it.

A statement can take a lot of thinking to understand because it's carrying some deep truth for which we lack natural insight- or, just because it has no meaning and therefore cannot be understood. I've heard many different variations of the second sentence, from many different people but, again, popular opinion about what constitutes bullshit or not is not a very objective criterion.

I mean more that the paper compares meaningless statements with difficult but meaningful statements. Rather than the common term of "bullshit" meaning lies or something disagreeable.

The author probably should have defined "bullshit" more accurately, but the paper seems to be purposely abstruse.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#235

Post by andrewflnr »

westoncb wrote: post #227
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interestingly, that was the only one I categorized differently from the authors—I could find a meaning for it. It's not an aphorism in the same way as the others (I'm not clear on whether that was the point, or just whether the statement had to be meaningful in general)—but it could be interpreted as follows: Something has 'abstract beauty' (as opposed to concrete, surface beauty) through some conceptual significance…

In another interpretation, something can be "superficially" beautiful in an abstract way (say, a fractal or abstract mosaic), but if you can find another meaning in it, it changes the way you see it, probably for the better.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#236

Post by deviationblue »

It's telling that the profound statements are inherently prosaic. So are they really 'profound' or categorized so because they can be tied to some kind of natural or observable or relatable phenomena. I guess that doesn't matter since we are tying this to prosocial behavior, the idea here is to identify what can induce the feeling of 'birds of a feather' (at least, that's my take of it).

The bullshit statements were easy to pick out because they're too abstract or require lateral thinking.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#237

Post by cjensen »

Surely those questions are just a reading comprehension test? I.e. can you read some difficult and somewhat abstract sentences and see if they have any rational (metaphorical or whatev) meaning?

They correlate because the root cause of identifying them is reading comprehension.

And for people who have a bit of trouble with the comprehension, the pessimistic "this is just bs" way of throwing up one's hands and giving up is correlated with non-social behavior. Meh.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#238

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#239

Post by drb91 »

hesk wrote: post #230
asteli wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Aren't all observations subjective, hence not universal?

Observations are inherently a posteriori, not a priori, this is true. However, "universal observation" is not the same as "objective" or "a priori". I'd call the experience of suffering a type of universal observation, but it's not an a priori statement, and it's certainly not objectively evaluable.

That said, the phrase remains mostly meaningless without more context; I'm certainly not trying to defend the phrase itself.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#240

Post by muzani »

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.

That's the funny thing with bullshit isn't it? You can give a meaningless statement and people will just attach a meaning to it if it clicks.
Post reply on HN