Live data from Hacker News

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

journals.plos.org

281–290 of 298 posts

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#281
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote any of your comments, but I didn't understand your gripe until this post, and I agree with you that the question is not worded well. Imaginary's primary definition is only existing in your imagination , so it's technically correct on one level, but if you look at synonyms for imaginary, and the way that people commonly use it, you get words like nonexistent, made-up, fictional, unreal, etc..

So nonexistent pain hurts as much as real pain? Doesn't that make even less sense?

I think the disconnect here is on what imaginary means in this sentence.

Most people in this thread see it as real physical pain conjured up by one's imagination - so things like psychosomatic pain, pain caused by mental illness, pain caused by fears, etc. So think of someone getting dizzy from their fear of heights, or a hoarder doubled over retching because someone is throwing away parts of their hoard.

Whereas you in essence think that it's an oxymoron - if it's real pain, it by definition can't be imaginary. So it's just a thought exercise or a theatrical performance.

So maybe the sentence would be less bullshitty if it read "irrational pain" or something like that.

But as most people read "imaginary pain" as "real pain felt, without reason" instead of "fake pain you're just imagining about", I think your reading of "imaginary" is too parsimonious.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#282
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…

> 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. I agree the whole thing is dubious, but that's a pretty weird criticism to pick out. The sentence specifically says "river" and is true of rivers; the fact that water jet cutters exist is irrelevant.

Yeah, that comment is more indicting of the poster than the sentence. I would guess they're not super prosocial.. as a Rorschach test, this thing is fascinating.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#283
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…

Which makes sense, as this is essentially a Rorschach test about prosocial behavior.

Basically the test is immune to this kind of criticism, because it's only interested in your response to it.

And lo and behold if you "troll" it by declaring it all bullshit, you're a type A engineer willing to argue over meaningless things, which certainly isn't very prosocial, whatever value it otherwise brings.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#284
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, it's not a universal truth. Some of us work hard on this (probably because we came across Confucius in our youth).

Isn't the fact that it needed hard work an indication that the statement is useful for the average person?

Useful for the average person, absolutely. I don't think I understood the question.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#285
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote any of your comments, but I didn't understand your gripe until this post, and I agree with you that the question is not worded well. Imaginary's primary definition is only existing in your imagination , so it's technically correct on one level, but if you look at synonyms for imaginary, and the way that people commonly use it, you get words like nonexistent, made-up, fictional, unreal, etc..

So nonexistent pain hurts as much as real pain? Doesn't that make even less sense?

Sorry, I could have been more clear, and kthejoker explained it better (I think). If you use the primary definition, the question makes sense. If you use definitions like 'nonexistent,' the question doesn't make sense. The question basically asks you to infer that it means only existing in your imagination. It's too ambiguous for my taste - for no good reason.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#286
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So nonexistent pain hurts as much as real pain? Doesn't that make even less sense?

Sorry, I could have been more clear, and kthejoker explained it better (I think). If you use the primary definition, the question makes sense. If you use definitions like 'nonexistent,' the question doesn't make sense. The question basically asks you to infer that it means only existing in your imagination . It's too ambiguous for my taste - for no good reason.

[deleted]

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#287
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So nonexistent pain hurts as much as real pain? Doesn't that make even less sense?

I think the disconnect here is on what imaginary means in this sentence. Most people in this thread see it as real physical pain conjured up by one's imagination - so things like psychosomatic pain, pain caused by mental illness, pain caused by fears, etc. So think of someone getting dizzy from their fear of heights, or a hoarder doubled over retching because someone is throwing away parts of their hoard. Whereas you…

>Whereas you in essence think that [imaginary pain] is an oxymoron

No, I think that there is such a thing as imaginary pain, just as there is such a thing as an imaginary elephant. You can imagine being in pain. You can imagine an elephant. But if someone said "imaginary elephants weigh just as much as real elephants", I would be confused (unless they just meant that the imagined weight of the imagined elephant was equal to the weight of the real elephant).

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't good, but it's sometimes fun. That depends entirely on who you're doing it to. If you're not careful, it could end up being just mean.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#289
What does that even actually prove? Like, of course people who can distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable are likely to be smarter, more experienced and more responsible, and thus contribute more to the society. If somebody is not very bright as to not even tell the BS from the sensible, then surely they also can't have the intelligence and smartness and resolve to actually contribute to the community in meaningful ways. Hell, they might well even put a load of money and support into foolhardy schemes that absolutely don't work and damage the community, or that are downright scams. On the contrary, smart people of course would know where to dedicate their money/efforts for the maximum effect on the society as a whole.

Also, the so-called "bullshit sensitivity" is undoubtedly related to many other factors like literacy, educational level, income, social status etc. No doubt people who enjoy a higher social status and have more money on their hands instead of having to worry about making ends meet, would find it easier to contribute to "pro-society" activities. I just simply fail to see how this study is much meaningful. (Even the word "prosocial" is just dubious. It's not in the sense of "socializing more" but "contributing more to the society".) Sounds like quite a BS study to me.

Re: Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

#290
post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not a possible meaning of "imaginary pain" in my dialect of English.

Seems like the sentence might just be a poor translation from Swedish.
Post reply on HN