13 ms·
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
by duopixel 8y ago
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 seeking person.
4. You are not only responsible for the things you say, but also for the things that you do not say.
5. Health and tolerance provides creativity for the future.
6. We have other flaws before our eyes, but our own flaws behind our back.
7. Your teacher can open the door, but you have to step in.
8. Your movement transforms universal observations.
9. The person who never made a mistake never tried something new.
10. The whole silence infinite phenomena.
11. Imagined pain does not hurt less because it is imagined.
12. The invisible is beyond all new immutability.
13. The unexplainable touches on the inherent experiences of the universe.
14. It is one thing to be tempted, but quite another to fall for the temptation.
*
Here are the answers for self-assessment:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0201474.t001 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=l...
No claim is made on the validity of the experiment (the researchers' or your own). Proposed in the name of curiosity!
- ak39 8y agoNo 10. sounds just like something Slavoj Zizek would say.
- FabHK 8y agoI wonder whether there's research correlating low bullshit-sensitivity with endorsement of postmodern "thought".
- drb91 8y agoWhat area are you talking about? Postmodern means a lot of different things.
- Fordec 8y agoOr a random sentence generator. Or an unlocked phone in a pocket with autocomplete enabled
- pjc50 8y agoThis reminds me of the tremendous and only slightly trolling "What is wrong with our thoughts" by philosopher David Stove: http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html (If you're finding it TLDR then at least skip to the list of numbered propositions in the middle)
- AlexCoventry 8y agoThis essay is incredibly ironic. Thousands of words to sneer at "fatally bad thought," based on nothing but bald assertions that it's flawed, pretence that we dear readers all agree and can see that it's flawed, and appeals to emotion via expressions of Stove's disgust at the intellectual corruption its flaws reflect. A "nosology of thought" sounds like a fine research program, but a manifesto about it ought to at least give a few examples to show the criteria for helpful diagnostics. I like the dialog with Muggeridge at the end, though.
- FabHK 8y agoIncidentally, I wonder whether the translation from the Swedish original is somewhat deficient here, as it doesn't seem to be entirely grammatical.
- mirimir 8y agoI wonder about that too.
- staticautomatic 8y agoHe's a rather big fan of Lacan, so that should already be setting off the bullshit alarms.
- waterhouse 8y agoExpert steelmanner here. This is fun. 1. The river cuts through a rock because its power is above some threshold where it causes more than zero damage, and the damage multiplied by the persistence (time spent) is what it does to the rock. (Compare the photoelectric effect; if the photons are too weak, they don't do anything no matter how many you have.) Of course, a scientist probably wouldn't use that language. 2. A human who sees a hidden meaning in something may transform their opinion of something's beauty. A grain of truth under bullshit phrasing. 3. ... Now this I can't think of a non-bullshit interpretation for. The future hasn't happened yet, so it doesn't tell you anything, certainly not anything surprising, until it happens and then it's no longer the future. 4. True, though kind of tautological. 5. Health helps a brain be capable of creativity, sure. Tolerance helps not squash other people's creativity. Eh, it's kinda true. 6. I assume "other flaws" is meant to be "others' flaws". There is truth to this: at least for some kinds of flaws, it's easier to see them in others than in oneself. 7. See also "you can lead a horse to water...". Has a valid truth: I think most kinds of learning work much better when the learner is participating. 8. Um... ... universal observations? Like mathematical facts, or facts about the Sun that anyone can see? But my movement doesn't transform them. Bullshit. 9. Almost certainly true. 10. That isn't a sentence. If I try auto-correcting to "the whole silences infinite phenomena"... I guess you could E-prime-ify it to "a human who observes the whole may lose sight of the many little interesting details"... meh. I'm probably reading more insight into it than the author made an honest attempt to convey. Bullshit. By the way, I'm now suspecting an alternating bullshit/non-bullshit pattern. 11. I think this has a lot of truth to it, though it might not be true in all cases. 12. New immutability? What? I'm suspecting some of these are taken from http://wisdomofchopra.com/ http://wisdomofchopra.com/. 13. Ehm... one could say that we experience a lot of things without understanding (or being able to explain) most of them. "inherent experiences" sounds like experiences that every conceivable being has, which I'm not sure exist other than "the experience of consciousness and cognition", which beings probably must have in order to qualify as beings, but which are probably felt much differently by different beings. So no. 14. Agreed. And, looking at the results... Yup, makes sense.
- red75prime 8y ago> Expert steelmanner here You are risking DoS attack, steelmanning statements from untrusted sources.
- whatsstolat 8y agoI got 100%. My BS meter is quantum!
- greenhatman 8y agoOnly one I got wrong is 6, because it has a grammar error in it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- foldr 8y ago>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'm missing here.
- alkonaut 8y agoPerhaps because all pain is, in a sense, "imagined"?
- foldr 8y agoI don't think so. The sentence seems to be accepting the distinction between imagined pain and real pain, and saying that the imaginary nature of the former does not cause it to hurt less than the latter (technically leaving open the possibility that it does hurt less for some other reason). Also, we clearly can distinguish imaginary pain from real pain. For example, there's a difference between the real pain I feel if I stub my toe and the imaginary pain I "feel" if I imagine myself stubbing my toe.
- heavenlyblue 8y agoBut a pragmatist in many people would say: “why then that person does not take any antidepressants/codeine?”, if that pain is so painful? So it may be quite a bullshit statement, depending on how you take it.
- foldr 8y agoWe're just talking about cases where people suffer pain because of false beliefs, which can easily happen to people who have no mental health issues. If you heard that a loved one died, you'd be in a lot of pain, regardless of whether or not that report was true (so long as you believed it).
- malloryerik 8y ago> 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's a real mental, neurological phenomenon. But the only pain that's imagined is pain that's not happening to us, like someone else's pain and future pain, and sorry but despite all sympathy and fear, yeah that does usually hurt a lot less.
- stult 8y agoThe study doesn't make any claims about the validity of the "actually" profound statements, because the validity or lack thereof is irrelevant to the study. Those statements simply have actual semantic content, as opposed to the meaningless bullshit statements, which don't communicate anything and therefore can't even be assessed for their validity.
- foldr 8y agoRight, but if you ask people whether a sentence is 'profound' or 'bullshit', then it's pretty unclear which of those two categories you should put a sentence in if it makes sense but is also clearly false. Such a sentence doesn't really fall into either category. "The moon is made of cheese" has semantic content, but it's not very profound.
- stubish 8y agoPain hurts by definition. Even if the pain is imagined, it still hurts, by definition. If you are imagining something that doesn't hurt, you are not imagining pain, by definition. Pain hurts, even if it is all in your head. Same as 'irrational fears are scary despite being irrational', or 'imaginary fears are scary despite being imaginary'.
- foldr 8y ago>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?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- raverbashing 8y ago> "its power but it's persistence" Can I call BS on getting the first its right and the 2nd one wrong? On that subject, I would have classified 5 differently but it seems to be the highest score of the BS sentences so I guess it's debatable
- sophistication 8y agoThe only sentence that confused me is this one: > 3. The future elucidates irrational facts for the seeking person. I'm not a native English speaker, so I might be wrong, but I'm reading this as "the future will more likely reveal the truth to those who are open-minded" which seems to be too profound to be bullshit. Of course, "irrational fact" is an awkward way to refer to false beliefs, but awkwardness≠bullshit.
- droopyEyelids 8y agoAwkwardness, vagueness can equal bullshit because it is a blank slate you project your own meaning over. The one that tripped me up was “imagined pain hurts not less because its imagined” Is that saying people who suffer psychologically actually suffer? Or should i take it at face bullshit value?
- solarkraft 8y agoBut a belief isn't a fact.
- sophistication 8y agoThat's why I described it as "awkward". It could even be poetic, an ellipsis of "irrational facts [that people believe in]", or an elliptical reversal of "facts [that people] irrational[ly believe in]".
- dingaling 8y agoYou did better at an interpretation than I did as a native English speaker. I just parsed it as a string of unrelated words. Basically if I couldn't understand and agree with or accept the statements at first glance then I considered them bullshit. It was an accurate result except for statement 5 with which I agreed.
- throwaway080383 8y agoYeah I only labeled it as bs because "irrational fact" makes no sense.
- 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- O2F2 8y ago1 False, there is no persistence in the absence of power 2 False, the hidden/unknown has no transformative effect unless it is revealed 3 Missing information, what are 'irrational facts'? 4 Highly debatable, situational 5 False, creativity is not bound to either health or tolerance but modified through their experience. 6 Flowery way to say we like to shift perspective unto flaws that are not our own? We certainly have a track record when it comes to this behavior. Still not universally true. 7 You cannot be forced to learn. Context dependent. 8 Universal observations? Movement as in 'through life' (experience)? Our observations are contextualized by past experiences. Unsure about this sentence. 9 The person who has never tried anything literally died in the womb. 10 Missing context. 11 Being in pain is painful, 'imagined pain' makes no sense. 12 What, missing context. 13 What is 'the inherent experience of the universe'? Can the unexplainable touch anything? 14 Correct, being temped can be interpreted to be done unto you, not falling for temptation is the act of resisting it. There is *a difference*. edit: typos
- Devon64327 8y agoNow that you've participated in the study, how would you self-evaluate your level of prosocial behavior?
- O2F2 8y agoI'd like to point to statement number six and tell you I'm definitely more prosocial than the other guy. Jokes aside, I do like to help people out but won't go out of my way to seek opportunities to do so.
- pixl97 8y ago>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. But to deny the absolute power of a raging torrent and the amount of physical landscape change it is capable of in just moments is absolute folly. A swift river full of sand and chunks of rock can act like a water cutter or a sand blaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods are a testament to the power of water.
- kjeetgill 8y agoYou're right of course but you get what they _mean_ right? Persistence can be key to accomplishing something significant you don't feel capable of. Or am I being too charitable?
- wavefunction 8y agoThat specific example seems more like some combination of persistence and power is required: great power suddenly and temporarily expressed could cut through stone while a weak power expressed over a long-enough time frame would have the same effect. On it's face it's only a partially true statement and thus is effectively 'BS' when presented as an aphorism. As well, it anthropormorphizes the effect of gravity on water as 'persistence.' It might serve as a fine metaphor for human persistence but that's all.
- kjeetgill 8y agoPossibly Controversial: I think it's key to read it a specific (overly charitable?) light. You kind of have to take for granted that it's good advice in context. Someone is feeling discouraged and incapable facing come significant task and the best advice is to not be distracted by the feelings of incapability but rather persevere. If you're reading it as statement on the relationship between power and persistence .. um .. you're missing it's point. Whether you agree or think it isn't well communicated is besides the point a little bit.
- rezeroed 8y ago"Genuinely profound"? I'd call them cheesy.
- kjeetgill 8y agoYea, I read "Genuinely profound" and flinched a but too. I read it here to mean even basically coherent ideas. Compared to the "bullshit" ones I think they still stood out though.
- Timpy 8y agoI administered the self test and as I was checking my results I started patting myself on the back for doing so well, then I realized this is no different from giving yourself an online IQ test; I just wanted to affirm to myself how smart I think I am.
- jacobush 8y agoHere - have an affirming upvote. :)
- fuzzywalrus 8y agoAlso its a bit of a misrepresentation of how the questions were framed as they weren't asked to evaluate if answers were bullshit but rather if they were profound or not. We're going in with the preset mind frame sussing out the bullshit answers as opposed to the more open-ended testing scenario. Framing of questions always affects the outcome of answers. Lastly, a few of these read like the Chopra quote generator. http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/ http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- everybodyknows 8y agoCopy of the questions above contains several typos that alter the meaning of the questions.
- asteli 8y ago> 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.
- twic 8y agoOh, i thought it was about parallax.
- mirimir 8y agoYeah, it's obviously a restatement of relativity.
- hesk 8y agoAren't all observations subjective, hence not universal?
- drb91 8y agoObservations 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.
- muzani 8y agoThat'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.
- dionidium 8y agoI didn't mark #5. It's oddly worded, but I think it's hinting at something that actually is profound. They're otherwise pretty obvious.
- Flowsion 8y agoYeah, agreed. I think that's why it has a score closer to profound statement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- methodover 8y ago> 6. We have other flaws before our eyes, but our own flaws behind our back. There has to be a typo here, right? I marked this as “bullshit” because it doesn’t make sense. But the link says it’s not bullshit...
- mds 8y agoShould be “Others’”
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- anewone 8y agoIt's saying that it's easier to see flaws in other people than in ourselves.
- sporkologist 8y agoI 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!).
- zaptheimpaler 8y agoWell 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?
- jon_richards 8y agoIs that not just a complicated way of saying meaning (intentional or not) is important in art?
- dhimes 8y agoIt's like #3: You see things differently once you see the pattern.
- westoncb 8y agoInterestingly, 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 it contains; however, once you look more, there is a deeper hidden meaning to the concepts, which changes the beauty into something else.
- andrewflnr 8y agoIn 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.
- null000 8y agoITT: People who maybe got one or two wrong, but really really don't want to have been wrong. Come on people, this is just loosely correlated with donating time and money to charity in a study that has decent odds of having primarily been done to grab headlines - don't take it too personally, and maybe go donate if you're really that concerned. Don't feel too defined by a 13 question true/false quiz. (Disclaimer: I fall in the "1 wrong" group)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gcbw2 8y agoThis 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)
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago> 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.
- kthejoker2 8y agoYeah, 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.
- sk5t 8y ago> strong water jets The aphorism concerns a river, not an industrial cutting machine.
- roywiggins 8y agoIt 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.
- spiderfarmer 8y agoBullshit is defined as something meaningless or not true.
- traek 8y agoReminds me of Jenny Holzer’s work (she’s a conceptual artist who works with text). https://www.moma.org/collection/works/63755 https://www.moma.org/collection/works/63755 "BAD INTENTIONS CAN YIELD GOOD RESULTS" “CATEGORIZING FEAR IS CALMING"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pmart123 8y agoI would change the scale to profound vs. inconsequential or shallow.